Exactly. I dont understand the different rationales for people that vote in polls but this idea that just because you play in the same conference as Alabama, doesnt make you top 10 material.
2013 NCAA Football Thread
- Thread starter Wrymouth3
- Start date
Exactly. I dont understand the different rationales for people that vote in polls but this idea that just because you play in the same conference as Alabama, doesnt make you top 10 material.
ummmm........
Extremely normal.
I know it's splitting hairs, but it's actually preseason perceptions, not polls, that influence the later polls. What I mean by that is even if there was a moratorium on all polls until mid-October or something, those first polls wouldn't be based solely on the outcomes of the games over the first six weeks of the season, but also on preseason perceptions of the teams and 'unofficial' polls like ESPN's power rankings that would still be available earlier.
This 'perception bias' exists by necessity, because we have so many teams and so few games. Even at the end of the season, after all the games have been played, there is never a consensus ranking of 1-25 that everyone agrees on and generates no controversy at all. We typically can't even agree on 1&2, as I recall.
And I think the polls have responded to that. Over the past few years there has been a lot more fluidity in the early part of the season as far as teams sliding up and down the rankings as early misconceptions are exposed. The transparency of the AP polls has helped a lot there too. Outlying votes are always the talk of the internet once the votes are analyzed, and then that guy gets asked about why he voted that way, and then other voters realize that he's valuing something that they marginalize, and whether the outlier is right or wrong he has expanded the discourse, and then the rankings start roiling around, like bad Chinese in your bowels.
I think the idea that a team can't drop without losing -- or rise without a team above them losing -- is in the past, and I think that's good. Remember, Notre Dame started the season at #24 in the coaches poll last year and they were unranked in the AP. The second polls of the season saw two top five teams drop after a win, and so on . . .
Now, you're just being silly. There is no question that the top tier of the SEC dominates college football at the moment. You could maybe argue that Florida doesn't belong, but the other four are locks. South Carolina should probably be higher, actually. If you want to talk about preconceptions ruining the rankings, it's their name that's keeping them down. If LSU and South Carolina switched coaches, rosters and last year's records, LSU would be a lot higher than 7th and South Carolina a lot lower than 13th . . .
ALabama and LSU are the only top tier. The rogues gallery of Georgia like failures is too expansive to name every one.
And honestly, how many times have any of these SEC also rans actually deserved the preseason rankings at the end of the season. Hardly any.
And honestly, how many times have any of these SEC also rans actually deserved the preseason rankings at the end of the season. Hardly any.
ummmm........
Extremely normal.
Well, let's see. Last year there were five SEC teams in the preseason AP, and five in the postseason AP. The year before that, there were two in the preseason AP, and four in the postseason AP. The year before that, there were two preseason, and three postseason.
So it seems to be working out pretty well . . .
In other news, if Manziel doesn't play vs. 'Bama this year, I shall be very put out . . .
So it seems to be working out pretty well . . .
In other news, if Manziel doesn't play vs. 'Bama this year, I shall be very put out . . .
ummmm........
Extremely normal.
And it looks like perhaps he won't . . .
EDIT: Oh! Oh! How about Manziel gets a four game suspension a la AJ Green, Alabama beats A&M, A&M runs through the rest of their season and Alabama and A&M get the rematch in the title game. Yes! YES! YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!
EDIT: Oh! Oh! How about Manziel gets a four game suspension a la AJ Green, Alabama beats A&M, A&M runs through the rest of their season and Alabama and A&M get the rematch in the title game. Yes! YES! YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!
Doesn't Alabama have Iowa State and Baylor to thank for its last two titles?
ummmm........
Extremely normal.
And Stanford and USC! Don't forget Oregon and KState both had to lose last year. Actually, if you really want to start thinking about it, Chip Kelly was only a handful of plays away from winning three in a row before he left for the Eagles.
But when we go to thanking people for titles, I'm pretty sure we start with Saban . . .
EDIT: Kind of a busy hour in CFB. A&M hires Lightfoot Franklin, Hill back on team at LSU, and Exum officially ruled out for the Alabama game . . .
But when we go to thanking people for titles, I'm pretty sure we start with Saban . . .
EDIT: Kind of a busy hour in CFB. A&M hires Lightfoot Franklin, Hill back on team at LSU, and Exum officially ruled out for the Alabama game . . .
ummmm........
Extremely normal.
Okay, so it seems pretty obvious that Manziel took money to sign autographs.
First off, note how deeply broken the college football model is when it makes an issue of this.
Second, without subpoena power, there is a good chance that the NCAA will never be able to prove this happened.
So, if the investigation drags on into the season, what should A&M do? If they play him and he's later ruled ineligible, they will have to vacate any wins he played in, but why would they care, really? He's a talented enough player that his presence or absence will affect the W/L record and fan interest in the program, and games won on the field are what matter, regardless of what the NCAA's records say.
I'd say play him, right? It's not like he cheated, he's just profiting from his fame, which he should be allowed to do anyway . . .
First off, note how deeply broken the college football model is when it makes an issue of this.
Second, without subpoena power, there is a good chance that the NCAA will never be able to prove this happened.
So, if the investigation drags on into the season, what should A&M do? If they play him and he's later ruled ineligible, they will have to vacate any wins he played in, but why would they care, really? He's a talented enough player that his presence or absence will affect the W/L record and fan interest in the program, and games won on the field are what matter, regardless of what the NCAA's records say.
I'd say play him, right? It's not like he cheated, he's just profiting from his fame, which he should be allowed to do anyway . . .
ummmm........
Extremely normal.
The core of the problem is trying to maintain an equal competitive environment in an 'amateur' sport that generates such tremendous revenue. Nobody's giving up the revenue, so the only solution is admitting that these are not amateur athletes. This would inevitably enlarge the gap between the haves and have-nots, but I think it is time to just bite the bullet and get that done.
Every major conference commissioner spoke on this over the summer. They all say that 'Division 4' is a last resort, but what is the point of giving the major powers more control over issues that will affect all FBS members? Allowing stipends -- or allowing players to profit off their likenesses, or whatever -- will effectively create a new division within FBS of teams that can afford to pay and those that can't, so why not just make it official . . ?
Every major conference commissioner spoke on this over the summer. They all say that 'Division 4' is a last resort, but what is the point of giving the major powers more control over issues that will affect all FBS members? Allowing stipends -- or allowing players to profit off their likenesses, or whatever -- will effectively create a new division within FBS of teams that can afford to pay and those that can't, so why not just make it official . . ?
That's probably close to where we're headed right now.
I wouldn't worry at all about anything happening to Manziel. The NCAA is losing their top investigators left and right to take jobs at universities (morale at the NCAA is at an all-time low), and given their lack of subpenoa power and general malaise around the enforcement structure, I'd be absolutely SHOCKED if they were able to drum up enough proof to actually try to enforce a suspension. I think this will end up being a nonstory. Also, the sources that led to the piece being published in ESPN to begin with are notoriously poor.
I wouldn't worry at all about anything happening to Manziel. The NCAA is losing their top investigators left and right to take jobs at universities (morale at the NCAA is at an all-time low), and given their lack of subpenoa power and general malaise around the enforcement structure, I'd be absolutely SHOCKED if they were able to drum up enough proof to actually try to enforce a suspension. I think this will end up being a nonstory. Also, the sources that led to the piece being published in ESPN to begin with are notoriously poor.
Serutan
Eatibus Anythingibus
This. I never understood how those OSU players selling (IIRC) their personal property
could possibly have been a violation of any sort.
I find it repugnant that they can't sign autographs. Autographs, the only thing an NCAA player could possibly own.
Also imagine a situation where a player writes a post dated check for a good or service and the person taking it refuses to cash it and keeps it as a souvenir. Are you really going to punish the player for a person's action or are all things with signatures a violation?
Also imagine a situation where a player writes a post dated check for a good or service and the person taking it refuses to cash it and keeps it as a souvenir. Are you really going to punish the player for a person's action or are all things with signatures a violation?
Well thank god.
Yes. The only violation occurs if the athlete charges for an autograph, or sells the autograph himself directly.
Is this a stupid rule? Of course it is.
Similar threads
