Florida's Schedule

Mott the Hoople said:
Sigggghhh you know the one real argument that doesn't give PAC10/Big10 fans a leg to stand on? Well to state the obvious, we need a national playoff to decide the championship on the field. Which two conferences are doing the most to obstruct such a tournament? The Big 10 and the Pac 10. Which conference supports a tournament? The SEC. Sighhhhhh we need a tournament.
Click to expand...


Actually Mott are you sure the SEC wants a playoff? I might be speaking out of my ass here but I thought I recently read the SEC commissioner said he doesn't want a playoff and it makes perfect sense. With their creampuff schedules the SEC is in a strong position to put 2 teams in the BCS each year which brings millions to the conference. The SEC has zero financial incentive to want to change.
 
I'm cherry picking a paragraph here from a writer talking about how exciting the Pac 10 race is this year (with a remote possibility of six teams tying for first place) and why no one would replicate the Pac 10's round robin play...



Unfortunately, the very thing that makes this year's Pac-10 race so exciting is probably hurting the conference more than it helps. By playing an extra conference game, half the teams in the league are guaranteed an extra loss, and one less nonconference game means one less chance to schedule a creampuff and inflate records. That makes the league unlikely to earn a second BCS berth (it hasn't since 2002), which, sadly, means there's really no incentive for other leagues to copy its model."
 
WinterBorn said:
Mott, since you are a fan of physiology, have you seen the recent research and considerations for banning helmets (and possibly pads) from football?

The number of brain injuries is staggering. And having the pads and helmets is said to have the players hitting harder.
Click to expand...
Yea I have. It certainly is counterintuitive to think that helmets are the cause of brain injuries but they are. I think this is something that really needs to be looked into very seriously. The football powers that be will fight it tooth claw and nail. The NFL all ready has a propaganda effort being funded with millions of dollars to refute the peer reviewed scientific findings because they fear how this could change the game. The pathology studies being done on deceased NFL players is showing a frightening level of brain injuries that one associates with sports like boxing. They have essentially discovered that the "dings" football players take for granted are full fledged concussions.

Maybe what is needed is changing the design of helmets so that they can be used to protect from head injuries but could not be used as a weapon while takling and blocking. Bicycle helmet design comes to mind. Comparisons to Rugby come to mind in which the atheletes do not use helmets and do not have incidents of repetative brain injuries that American Football players have.
 
Topspin said:
that's crazy, they can just take the no helmet to helmet a little further banning any leading with the head.
Heads up football, and eliminate spearing a runner that is down. Which is already illegal but only called about 2% of the time.
Click to expand...
No it's not crazy. A lot of the brain injuries or "Dings" come from using helmets during blocking. Lineman in particular are smaking helmet to helmet in virtually every play causing deceleration trauma to the brain. Rule changes alone won't change that. It's the design of the hard shell helmet that allows this. I think a design change in helmets that would protect the head from blunt force trauma but would not allow the head to be used as a blunt force weapon should be looked into. Maybe helmets with a hard outershell and a polystyrene inner shell that's designed to crush on impact in order to absorb shock. This would protect the head from accidental blund force trauma but such a helmet could not be used for contact purpose as it doesn't afford that kind of protection.
 
WinterBorn said:
That would do ok for the tackling. But the lineman knock heads on every single play. Do a search on the information concerning brain injuries in football.

Rugby players have more shoulder or leg injuries, but far fewer brain injuries. And that is anything but a mild sport.
Click to expand...
Yea your right. The grad school I went to was a national power in Rugby and it's full contact football with out the pads. It's ironic that the protective equipment developed over the years have made American football more violent because one can hit with more force then before.
 
Topspin said:
If each of these no championship game conferences would adopt one you'd get several favorites toppled each year. This would much improve the already great BCS system.
Click to expand...
Actually the Big 10 wanted to do that. When the Big 10 expanded they invited both Penn State and Noter Dame into the conference. Noter Dame in an example of blinding short sightedness turned the offer down because they did not want to share revenue with a conference. Had Noter Dame joined the Big 10 there would be no argument about the Big 10 being on the same par as the SEC (certainly in terms of revenue generated and money spent on their programs in which the SEC has a slight lead over the Big 10 and a big lead over the rest of the nation). So the problem is, if not Noter Dame then who? The only teams I can think of that have programs of a stature to belong to the Big 10 in our geographical region are all ready members of the Big East. (Syracuse and Pitt). The Big 10 needs another team before it can really have a conference championship game.
 
cawacko said:
I'm cherry picking a paragraph here from a writer talking about how exciting the Pac 10 race is this year (with a remote possibility of six teams tying for first place) and why no one would replicate the Pac 10's round robin play...



Unfortunately, the very thing that makes this year's Pac-10 race so exciting is probably hurting the conference more than it helps. By playing an extra conference game, half the teams in the league are guaranteed an extra loss, and one less nonconference game means one less chance to schedule a creampuff and inflate records. That makes the league unlikely to earn a second BCS berth (it hasn't since 2002), which, sadly, means there's really no incentive for other leagues to copy its model."
Click to expand...

Says the candyass USC guy who's afraid to have a pac10 championship game
 
Topspin said:
Says the candyass USC guy who's afraid to have a pac10 championship game
Click to expand...

We play everyone! We don't need a championship game to make sure Alabama and Florida play each other.

Florida looked at the conference and said let's make sure we don't play the two toughtest teams this year so they didn't play Alabama and Ole Miss. A conference title game means they have to play one of the teams. Whoopti-do!
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Actually the Big 10 wanted to do that. When the Big 10 expanded they invited both Penn State and Noter Dame into the conference. Noter Dame in an example of blinding short sightedness turned the offer down because they did not want to share revenue with a conference. Had Noter Dame joined the Big 10 there would be no argument about the Big 10 being on the same par as the SEC (certainly in terms of revenue generated and money spent on their programs in which the SEC has a slight lead over the Big 10 and a big lead over the rest of the nation). So the problem is, if not Noter Dame then who? The only teams I can think of that have programs of a stature to belong to the Big 10 in our geographical region are all ready members of the Big East. (Syracuse and Pitt). The Big 10 needs another team before it can really have a conference championship game.
Click to expand...

Agreed, and with the Big East passing you it's going to be hard to convince one to move. But I think if Cinn or Pit (you don't want syracuse) would look long term they would pick the big 10.
 
cawacko said:
We play everyone! We don't need a championship game to make sure Alabama and Florida play each other.

Florida looked at the conference and said let's make sure we don't play the two toughtest teams this year so they didn't play Alabama and Ole Miss. A conference title game means they have to play one of the teams. Whoopti-do!
Click to expand...

Don't complain about a playoff when the real conferences have a plus 1 already.
Man up add Utah and BYU and have a north and south with a playoff like the 3 conferencese that are way better than yours do.
 
cawacko said:
Actually Mott are you sure the SEC wants a playoff? I might be speaking out of my ass here but I thought I recently read the SEC commissioner said he doesn't want a playoff and it makes perfect sense. With their creampuff schedules the SEC is in a strong position to put 2 teams in the BCS each year which brings millions to the conference. The SEC has zero financial incentive to want to change.
Click to expand...
I could of sworn it was the other way around that the SEC commisionar advocated a playoff.
 
cawacko said:
I'm cherry picking a paragraph here from a writer talking about how exciting the Pac 10 race is this year (with a remote possibility of six teams tying for first place) and why no one would replicate the Pac 10's round robin play...



Unfortunately, the very thing that makes this year's Pac-10 race so exciting is probably hurting the conference more than it helps. By playing an extra conference game, half the teams in the league are guaranteed an extra loss, and one less nonconference game means one less chance to schedule a creampuff and inflate records. That makes the league unlikely to earn a second BCS berth (it hasn't since 2002), which, sadly, means there's really no incentive for other leagues to copy its model."
Click to expand...
That's exactly right so that's another area in which the BCS needs to be modified. Brownie points need to be added for schools who schedule tough non-conf opponents.
 
LOL, second rate conferences need to add a CHAMPIONSHIP game before they can even sit at the table of let's have a playoff.
 
Topspin said:
Agreed, and with the Big East passing you it's going to be hard to convince one to move. But I think if Cinn or Pit (you don't want syracuse) would look long term they would pick the big 10.
Click to expand...
LOL You realize that Pitt, Syracuse, WV and Cincinnati, the cream of the Big East have never beaten OSU, PSU or Michigan?
Ironically if ND decides to join a conference they would probably join the Big east, even though there a better fit competitively and geographically with the Big 10, because it doesn't take much imagination to see that they would completely dominate that conference.

Actually, I think the Big East automatic BCS bid should have been taken away when Va. Tech and BC left to join the ACC. They should give it to the Mountain West conference.

I think Pitt is the only realistic choice. Cincinnati doesn't have a Big 10 caliber program. WV and Pitt do but I dont' see them leaving the Big East for the Big 10.
 
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople said:
LOL You realize that Pitt, Syracuse, WV and Cincinnati, the cream of the Big East have never beaten OSU, PSU or Michigan?
Ironically if ND decides to join a conference they would probably join the Big east, even though there a better fit competitively and geographically with the Big 10, because it doesn't take much imagination to see that they would completely dominate that conference.

Actually, I think the Big East automatic BCS bid should have been taken away when Va. Tech and BC left to join the ACC. They should give it to the Mountain West conference.
Click to expand...

I agree and though the Big East is better than you know that is short term.
Ahh, assuming you don't get raped in the big house. PLAYA:palm:
 
Mott the Hoople said:
That would be a major upset but it is the greatest rivalry in all of sports!
Click to expand...

I don't dissagree with that, nothing in the NFL is remotely close. Pac 10 is too high schoolish. No one would waist the air on acc/big east.

the only thing remotely close is Texas/Okl and Bama/auburn

The way OSU's coach used to say that school to the north he wouldn't say their name is priceless.
The Buckeyes appear to be back and a convincing win coupled with a poser loss above you could make for a nice weekend.
 
WinterBorn said:
Simple answer would be to have evry bowl get more than one game. That would increase the revenues regardless of who plays.

Giving a city two bowl games with a Boise State or Utah would bring as much as an Alabama v. Oklahoma. A stadium 3/4 full twice would bring more than a sellout crowd.
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand how much it costs to host a major college football game. Why would the Rose Bowl want to host a game where they lose a few million dollars, just so they can make it back on the bigger game? It would be self-defeating to go along with that, and this is why they don't.

I am not saying you don't have a good idea, or that I disagree with you, I am simply explaining why it doesn't happen. I once had a very similar idea, to use the lower-tier bowls as a playoff, and the four major bowls would serve as regional quarterfinals. From that, you would have four teams who would play to decide a national champion. The lower-tier bowls would certainly benefit from having a top-notch pairing, as opposed to the #2 CUSA team vs. the #2 Sun Belt team. The major bowls would have important significance again, and not just be for show.

But the problem then becomes the number of games played. These are college kids, not pros, they have exams to take, they have a life outside of football. The universities aren't going to pay for them to fly all over the country playing football games at the end of the season. It's really easy for us to sit back and say they should do this or that, but the complications and logistics are something we don't have to deal with and others would.
 
Dixie said:
I don't think you understand how much it costs to host a major college football game. Why would the Rose Bowl want to host a game where they lose a few million dollars, just so they can make it back on the bigger game? It would be self-defeating to go along with that, and this is why they don't.

I am not saying you don't have a good idea, or that I disagree with you, I am simply explaining why it doesn't happen. I once had a very similar idea, to use the lower-tier bowls as a playoff, and the four major bowls would serve as regional quarterfinals. From that, you would have four teams who would play to decide a national champion. The lower-tier bowls would certainly benefit from having a top-notch pairing, as opposed to the #2 CUSA team vs. the #2 Sun Belt team. The major bowls would have important significance again, and not just be for show.

But the problem then becomes the number of games played. These are college kids, not pros, they have exams to take, they have a life outside of football. The universities aren't going to pay for them to fly all over the country playing football games at the end of the season. It's really easy for us to sit back and say they should do this or that, but the complications and logistics are something we don't have to deal with and others would.
Click to expand...

I can see what you are saying about the financials, but I disagree that they would lose money.

As for the student athletes being overworked, consider that NCAA basketball teams play as many as 40 games in a single season. Granted they carry fewer people on road trips, but they also bring in far fewer dollars. Adding 6 games to the football schedule wouldn't create a hardship.
 
Topspin said:
I don't dissagree with that, nothing in the NFL is remotely close. Pac 10 is too high schoolish. No one would waist the air on acc/big east.

the only thing remotely close is Texas/Okl and Bama/auburn

The way OSU's coach used to say that school to the north he wouldn't say their name is priceless.
The Buckeyes appear to be back and a convincing win coupled with a poser loss above you could make for a nice weekend.
Click to expand...
Not only that but.....and this may be divine intervention...for only the second time in recorded history since the greatest coach in the history of the sport died.....THE BENGALS ARE WINNING!!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top