So I just finished watching the BCS selection show in which teams were chosen for the various BCS bowls as well as the championship bowl. Sadly I have to report that LSU, not Georgia, will be playing Ohio State for the championship. But the most intriguing match-up turned out to be Georgia vs Hawaii in the Sugar Bowl. For years, sports enthusiasts have been speculating about what would happen if the best conference in America, the SEC, played the prolific scoring teams of the Western Athletic Conference. Hawaii is the only undefeated team left and their quarterback, Colt Brennan, set many national QB scoring and touchdown records this year. It'll be quite interesting to see what everybody thinks of as a powerhouse scoring machine, go up against the hottest team in the South Eastern Conference. Those sissy WAC teams have never faced an SEC defense, an SEC running game, or hostile SEC fans.
Sure I'm disappointed about not playing in the championship game, but the match-up we drew will make for a very interesting New Years.
11 comments:
I was watching Sportscenter this morning and Kirk Herbstreit said that LSU deserves to be in the National Championship because they play in the toughest conference in football, the SEC. I agree with that statement. He also said that LSU battled it out this year having to play in 6 overtimes. Now, they played those six overtimes in two games. They lost both of those games. He is a moron.
Also for those of you who don't know much about LSU's coach Les Miles, look for alot of 4th down plays, going for a touchdown with 9 seconds left when you only need 3 to win, and a lot of flat out bizarre play calls.
This is a complete travesty! I have no problem with Ohio State moving from the 3 spot to the BCs game, but have a severe problem with a system that allows an idle team (Georgia) to drop a spot, and to be leap-frogged by another team 3 spots below them. It is time to start the revolt against the NCAA and make a playoff mandatory. If this season hasn't proved that out, then it never will be proved. Literally every #2 team has lost in an upset, and the Top 25 this year has resembled a yo-yo as teams marched up and down the scale. South Fla. unranked, lowly ranked ; rises to #2 and then falls back to the land of unrankedsville. Pitt beats WV; I can go on, but it is needles to prove that this country is in dire need of a 16 team playoff. Go away BCS.
Not a 16 team playoff! That is too much football, and the players aren't going to college for the reason there is a college, education. They already miss enough football. The point of Conferences is to settle the matter to the top maybe 10 ten teams in the nation. If you think about it, a 4 team playoff would sufficiently decide who the national champions are. Assuming that Ohio State and LSU get in, then the next two would be Georgia (because they were idle and if no one jumps them, they should be in the game) and either USC or Oklahoma. I don't really care which of the last two because both of their conferences suck and neither team came through in the clutch. Either way, with some sort of playoff system in place, people can finally stop complaining about why their team didn't get a fair shot. The BCS has proven time and time again that they don't know anything about football, and are simply there to make financial decisions for the NCAA. Also, I think that the Heisman Trophy should be done away with, it has proven in recent years to mean nothing. The best offensive player on the best team gets the trophy. You know the voters don't know anything when the Heisman winner goes in the fourth round of the NFL draft (Troy Smith).
Four teams would never sufficiently suffice the public. And, Kevin, you are wrong if you think that these athletes are going to scholl for an education. I will admit that some are, but the vast majority are looking to play pro ball, and this is the way there.
A 16 team playoff takes 4 games. Half the teams play 1 extra week. This actually allows theses student athletes to get back to just studying quicker than the current 3-4 week practice and study before the bowl game. Really, just an extra week of the season. The other half then play again eliminating 4 teams. They only have 2 weeks extra. Atotal of 4 teams then play for the right to be in the championship game, and to extend their season 1 more week.
My suggestion could incorporate the bowl sponsors, but would reduce the number in half (having over 30 bowls is stupid anyway). Attendance would be up, and TV ratings would soar.
As for the Heisman, I again disagree. By eliminating it, all you are doing is helping those that want to alter America. Wjile it does not have the glamour it once did, I know each indiviual winner is very proud of his accopmlishment. Pat Sullivan displays his in his office. Nice recruiting tool don't you think?
Anon, what is the purpose of college? I am not going to college for the football team. I am going to college for an education. The athletes are going to college for an education, and for doing well in classes they get the opportunity to play football and other sports. So you are wrong. Their scholarship pays for their tuition, not for their spot on the team. They earn that by going to class and getting an education. Also, no more than the top 4 or 5 times are even worthy of playing in the National Title game.
You are naive Kevin. The purpose of college and the purpose of college football do not coincide (I assume you think they do by your erroneous comment). College football and its participants are there solely to generate revenue for the school. This money goes to improve facilities so students like you will support athletic teams and the University you attend upon graduation and as you start earning a living. Millions of dollars are earned by athletic teams every year on your campus. How many people and how much money is donated to athletics as opposed to the people and dollars donated to education?
Example: I attended Auburn. I give a $1000 donation every year to the School of Business. In return I receive a parking spot for all Home Football games, as well as some food on certain games. I also donate a scholarship to the Athletic Department ($2000). For that donation I am given the right to spend more money and buy Football/baseball/basketball tickets before the general public. I fall way behind the truly big money donors, but still get my tickets yearly. The Business school gets about 250 donations as described above ( 250 x $1000= $250,000). The Athletic Department receives almost 1000 Scholarship donations at and above the $2000 minimum. (1000 x $2000= $2,000,000)
You do the rest and figure out where the money is made. By the way, the smart guys at the School of Business figured it out, and they have partnered with the Football bunch to put this package together.
No one argues what the scholarship pays for. Your argument is off target on the original point. I didn't even consider or care about the education issue other than as a retort to your comment on education. Now, as to your thought that only 4-5 teams are even worhty of of playing in the Title Game, I reiterate the point that virtually every team ranked #2 this season was defeated by a team ranked in the 10-25 or unranked range. This assures that these teams are of the ability to compete and that is what a playoff is about. Look at the basketball tournament. How many 12s 13s and 14 seeds win every year. By your logic they shouldn't be included as they are not worthy. I always enjoy watching a Cinderella dance, and the same goes for football. Nobody gave Boise State a chance to beat Oklahome last year, and no one is giving Hawaii a chance against UGA this year. The dogs better watch out. If they don't get fired up to play, these Rainbow boys will wax them off the field. I would love to see Boston College play a Florida; Illinois with Zook play Fla. How fun would that be? BC vs. VT in a rematch of a great game; All of those are out of the top 5.
Yes those teams are good, but how many 12, 13, and 14 teams win the NCAA tournament, hardly none. They may win one or two games, but they never win it all. And the point you so cleverly avoided was the fact that if the players don't make the grades, they don't get to play. Need an example? Brad Lester. Missed nearly half the season due to academic violation. Now try to tell me that he isn't there to learn. Because whether you like it or not, he has to get an education to play football. For at least 3 years, he is required to keep up with his grades, and therefore learn, in order to do what he came to Auburn to do, play football. So what is the point of all this? My point is that he the players don't get an education, they don't play, the athletics decline, and the donors, including you, lose interest in donating to the athletic department, and the athletic department loses money. Did the College of Business leave that lesson out?
Ignorance must be a blissfull state there Kevin. Brad Lester was a pawn caught in a battle between the Psychology department and the Athletic Department. His part was being in the wrong place at the wrong time. He and his partners were cleared and a teacher was removed from the school, but with lawsuits still pending I will not disclose any further intel.I will say that he was not grade deficient other than because of this group project. I did not "Cleverly" or otherwise avoid the point you brought up. I understand that these athletes are required by the NCAA to maintain a minimum GPA. We all know that. I also know, that as a student at whatever university you are attending, you are required to maintain a minimum GPA to stay enrolled. I also know that the number the NCAA requires and the number that, for example, is required of my daughter at Auburn are not the same. Football players are required to handle and balance studies and football for the entire season. Extending that for 1-4 weeks for a minimum of 2 and maximum of 16 teams is minimal at best. Your snide comment in the end of your litany, again shows your lack of maturity. I don't give a scholarship because my team wins, I give it to give back to the university where I received the education that allows me to do what I do. I have fond memories of my time in Auburn and hope to help continue the upgrade of facilities there so students, like you, will be able to have a better learning environment. Also, not that it matters, the athletic scholarship I donate has a minimum 3.0 GPA tied to it. The athlete that receives it must maintain that or it is gone. I know that they will transfer it to someone else, but I feel it is one little way I can show that education does matter. The College of Business did learn that lesson.
Well if you must know, I am Auburn University, and you made my point pretty clear, that if the athletes want to play football they have to make the grades. I don't know where you got your intel, but Brad Lester was punished for turning in a previously submitted paper. But thank you for making my point clear that if the athletes don't make good grades, they can't play. Now you are learning that college is about getting an education, and not about football.
Kevin you are not only ignorant, you are also shallow and callous with you attacks. I am an attorney for one of the other suitors against the university. You are completely off base with your "submitted paper" story. I will go no further with you on this. Again your ignorance about college athletics abounds. Read the comments above. You stated earlier that you go to college for an education. We both hope that you get a good one. However, so you understand, most athletes dont agree with you. they are there as a way to a means. Nothing else. I tried to explain that a playoff would shorten these guys field/study time rather than keep it the length that it is, allowing them to focus on studies TO MAKE GRADES AND BE ELIGIBLE. Don't get pompass with me since you obviously can't comprehend others .
I am through commmenting on this topic, so feel free to reply and know that it is unabated.
Lastly, I want to ponder why, with all of your study requirements and your I go to school to learn, how is it that you have time to blog and argue on every blog made here at the TRR. There are virtually none that you don't have multiple comments on.
I really enjoy how you are an attorney and actually called me ignorant, shallow, callous, and naive. I didn't think you were supposed to argue ad hominem. I mean if you want to hurt my feelings, please don't stop insulting me, but if you want to have a civil argument, actually argue, don't attack me. Surely as an attorney you can understand what I am asking of you. Attacking me is bad practice. Furthermore, I never attacked you, I made my points without having to attack you, and your only counterarguments were insults. I would probably make a good lawyer.
Post a Comment