Rittenberg - "snarf, snarf"

[rmilia1]

I really dont have an issue with taking the top 4 teams but if you are going to do that then you need to abolish preseason polls and not have any voting until week 7 or 8. By taking the top 4 teams you put way to much emphasis on where a team is ranked preseason. Also if you want to take the top 4 then you need to have independent voters and not coaches or beat writers vote. The whole thing with having coaches vote has always been laughable anyway. If you can do those 2 things then by all means take the top 4 but otherwise you need some clear cut way to determine the playoff teams otherwise we are in no different position than we are now IMO.

 

[USCDoom]

I would rather go back to the old system and stop crowning champs entirely than limit playoffs to 4 teams

Agreed, I am sure there are quite a few more examples but I will use 1977.

Before the Bowls this was the Top 5 schools in the Nation.

1. Texas
2. Oklahoma
3. Alabama
4. Michigan
5. Notre Dame

The 1977 National Champion was Notre Dame, the #5 team before the Bowls.

Final Rankings
1. Notre Dame
2. Alabama
3. Arkansas
4. Texas
5. Penn State

2 of the FINAL Top 4 schools, WERE NOT IN THE TOP 4 before the Bowls.

Texas lost to Notre Dame
Oklahoma lost to Arkansas
Michigan lost to Washington

Notre Dame WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IN A PLAYOFF.
BUT they were 38-10 better than the BEST TEAM in the nation...

 

[goDAWGSsicem]

I really dont have an issue with taking the top 4 teams but if you are going to do that then you need to abolish preseason polls and not have any voting until week 7 or 8. By taking the top 4 teams you put way to much emphasis on where a team is ranked preseason. Also if you want to take the top 4 then you need to have independent voters and not coaches or beat writers vote. The whole thing with having coaches vote has always been laughable anyway. If you can do those 2 things then by all means take the top 4 but otherwise you need some clear cut way to determine the playoff teams otherwise we are in no different position than we are now IMO.

Sounds great, but how do you find voters who are actually independent?


Now the BIG10 says they may want a selection committee.

Big Ten wants selection committee to pick four-team playoff - ESPN

 

[rmilia1]

Sounds great, but how do you find voters who are actually independent?


Now the BIG10 says they may want a selection committee.

Big Ten wants selection committee to pick four-team playoff - ESPN

Your point is valid about it being tough to find independent voters but we can surely find people more independent than coaches or sports writers of teams they are voting for. Ive never gotten preseason polls anyway especially in a sport that doesnt have a playoff. If you have a tourney like college basketball then by all means go crazy with a preseason poll because it means nothing but in the ONE sport that has no sure fire way to crown a champ it makes ZERO sense to rank the teams before theyve played. I personally think all 4 teams in the playoff should be conference champs but only if they are ranked in the top 8 of the BCS. Yes I would rather have number 8 Wisconsin at 10-2 in the playoff than 11-1 number 2 Bama and its not because Im a fan of a Big 10 team its because the sport we all love so much has ALWAYS been special because of how important the regular season is and how vital every game is so if you dont reward teams for winning their conference ahead of teams that cant even win their division then you lose all the heritage of the sport IMO.

 

[USCDoom]

1975 is another funny year.

Top4 before bowls
1. Ohio State
2. Texas A&M
3. Oklahoma
4. Alabama

Top 4 after bowls
1. Oklahoma
2. Arizona State
3. Alabama
4. Ohio State

Texas A&M finished #11 after being #2 the game before...

 

[olympicoscar]

I really dont have an issue with taking the top 4 teams but if you are going to do that then you need to abolish preseason polls and not have any voting until week 7 or 8. By taking the top 4 teams you put way to much emphasis on where a team is ranked preseason. Also if you want to take the top 4 then you need to have independent voters and not coaches or beat writers vote. The whole thing with having coaches vote has always been laughable anyway. If you can do those 2 things then by all means take the top 4 but otherwise you need some clear cut way to determine the playoff teams otherwise we are in no different position than we are now IMO.

You can't really do away with pre-season polls. Everyone on this board has a poll, magazines have polls, newspapers, and tons of Internet sites. The voters would be influenced by these polls.

However the best system is still the top 4 teams, using the current BCS system of voting.

 

[rmilia1]

You can't really do away with pre-season polls. Everyone on this board has a poll, magazines have polls, newspapers, and tons of Internet sites. The voters would be influenced by these polls.

However the best system is still the top 4 teams, using the current BCS system of voting.

My ONLY problem with this is that it flies in the face of what college football has stood for for 100 years ( until last year). What makes college football great is that it rewards the teams that have the best SEASON not necessarily the best team. That was my biggest issue last year with the whole Bama/OK State deal. For the first time in as long as I could remember the team that had the better season was passed up by a team that was perceived to be superior simply based on opinion and conjecture as opposed to results and thats what you'd have by taking the 4 top ranked teams instead of conference champs. I get that an 11-1 Bama is better than a 11-2 Wisconsin but you cant tell me that they had a better season before the bowl games. Seasons are based on winning conference titles not finishing 2nd in your division.

 

[goDAWGSsicem]

I don't think playoff placement should be about "rewarding" conf. champions, that is a reward in itself... and why reward teams that play in a weak conference?

I think it should be about placing the best teams, wheter that means the major conferences are all represented or every team in the playoff is from the same conference.

The BEST teams should be the ones competing for the title.

 

[rmilia1]

I don't think playoff placement should be about "rewarding" conf. champions, that is a reward in itself... and why reward teams that play in a weak conference?

I think it should be about placing the best teams, wheter that means the major conferences are all represented or every team in the playoff is from the same conference.

The BEST teams should be the ones competing for the title.

Eh conference rankings are all opinion. I mean who really knows year in and year out who the best conference is?? Or the second best etc. I mean in 06 the B10 was clearly the best league in CFB until, you know, OSU and Michigan got shit stomped in their bowls. Who knows if the SEC was better than the B12 last year?? We never got to see their champions play. I can see both sides of the argument for sure but I cant see rewarding an 11-1 4th place Iowa that finishes second in their division in the B10 ahead of an 12-1 ACC champion Virginia Tech that is 5th rated etc. Especially in years where some teams dont even have to play a conference title game and still make the playoff. Its conceivable you could end up with 4 teams in the playoff with none of them winning their league if they dont have to play in the leagues title game.

 

[Brasky]

Eye for an eye bro.


How did I fail to see the substance in his article when I didn't comment on the actual topic in my OP?

The point of my post was Rittenberg's (and the northern populous) disgusting stereotypical talk of "stupid southerners".

An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind Sicem

This is just you being ridiculously oversensitive.

Nowhere in there did it suggest any such thing. He used a clever quip about sec speed.

Chill.

 

[olympicoscar]

My ONLY problem with this is that it flies in the face of what college football has stood for for 100 years ( until last year). What makes college football great is that it rewards the teams that have the best SEASON not necessarily the best team. That was my biggest issue last year with the whole Bama/OK State deal. For the first time in as long as I could remember the team that had the better season was passed up by a team that was perceived to be superior simply based on opinion and conjecture as opposed to results and thats what you'd have by taking the 4 top ranked teams instead of conference champs. I get that an 11-1 Bama is better than a 11-2 Wisconsin but you cant tell me that they had a better season before the bowl games. Seasons are based on winning conference titles not finishing 2nd in your division.

If you only have 4 teams, you cannot just reward conference champions. I would only be in favor of that if the playoff was 16 teams.

Take 1971 for example. After all the bowl games, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Colorado were 1-2-3. All in the same conference back then. Alabama finished number 4 after having been beaten badly by number 1 Nebraska. Any playoff would have had to include the top 3 teams. Their only losses all season were to each other.

 

[rmilia1]

If you only have 4 teams, you cannot just reward conference champions. I would only be in favor of that if the playoff was 16 teams.

Take 1971 for example. After all the bowl games, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Colorado were 1-2-3. All in the same conference back then. Alabama finished number 4 after having been beaten badly by number 1 Nebraska. Any playoff would have had to include the top 3 teams. Their only losses all season were to each other.

Yeah but you could make an argument for all 3 that year since there was no conference title game all 3 schools can claim a conference title. Thats not the case now and the system needs tweaking when teams can sit at home and watch teams that already beat them have to win another game for the right to play them in the title game.

 

[goDAWGSsicem]

An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind Sicem

This is just you being ridiculously oversensitive.

Nowhere in there did it suggest any such thing. He used a clever quip about sec speed.

Chill.

In relation to intelligence, and it wasn't one little quip, he kept it as a theme to his piece reiterating it throughout.

I'm not the only one to call him on it, but I wouldn't expect a Team BIG10er who thinks the same way to understand what the problem is.

 

[goDAWGSsicem]

OK Rittenberg, calling us all stupid is nothing new... but you are getting personal now with the Chic-Fil-A reference... why don't you just kick my dog or slap my mother?

B1G won't stop playoff it doesn't really want - Big Ten Blog - ESPN

 

[bchampy]

OK Rittenberg, calling us all stupid is nothing new... but you are getting personal now with the Chic-Fil-A reference... why don't you just kick my dog or slap my mother?

B1G won't stop playoff it doesn't really want - Big Ten Blog - ESPN

He really is sad.

 

[ForkEmBucky]

Eye for an eye bro.


How did I fail to see the substance in his article when I didn't comment on the actual topic in my OP?

The point of my post was Rittenberg's (and the northern populous) disgusting stereotypical talk of "stupid southerners".

You should quit while you're not as far behind as you could be....

 

[goDAWGSsicem]

He really is sad.

What sad is the blind homerism of the TEAM BIG10ers.


BIG10 - BIG10 - BIG10



You'd think such highly educated Northerners could understand, but I guess not.

 

[ForkEmBucky]

You guys really are inept. This has been defending the B1G since 2006. SEC media outlets all over talk shit about the B1G, mostly out of a position of pure ignorance, so he fires back and all you Team SECers jump all over him and play the southern man's victim card. It'd be laughable if it wasn't so annoying.

You're like a black pot shouting at a kettle for being a hypocrite....but the kettle is copper. He was RIGHT ON for taking shots at the SEC. Maybe if you guys WERE a little quicker on the uptake, he wouldn't feel the need to go weapons hot.

 

[bchampy]

You guys really are inept. This has been defending the B1G since 2006. SEC media outlets all over talk shit about the B1G, mostly out of a position of pure ignorance, so he fires back and all you Team SECers jump all over him and play the southern man's victim card. It'd be laughable if it wasn't so annoying.

You're like a black pot shouting at a kettle for being a hypocrite....but the kettle is copper. He was RIGHT ON for taking shots at the SEC. Maybe if you guys WERE a little quicker on the uptake, he wouldn't feel the need to go weapons hot.

This entire post is laughable. Is that all you B1G'ers have? ''Well you're all dumb and fat''. Talk about childish. Especially since you've been talking out your ass in this thread.

 

[goDAWGSsicem]

Exactly, my point on why none of you see a problem with it - you all feel the same way.

Get over yourselves.

The guy is supposed to be a professional journalist. That kind of childish banter is meant for blogs & message boards. That's why I am not suprised at all that the TEAM BIG10ers here are resorting to personal attacks.


...and because you think "SEC media outlets" have been attacking the BIG10 for years, does that mean that I can't voice an opinion when a BIG10 writer does the same? Besides, the "shit talking" from SEC journalists is based on the BIG10's play on the field - not personal attacks.



BIG10 - BIG10 - BIG10