Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  College Football Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: College Football.....Where's the sport? « previous next »
Page: 1 2 3 4



Guest
#30 : September 04, 2007, 12:28:10 PM

Good idea Snook.  Cut out any chance the smaller schools have of making a name, making some money, and gaining exposure. 

I mean, you are right, Troy didn't deserve to play with FSU last year, UCF didn't deserve to beat Alabama a few years back or NC State this year, not to mention Wyoming this year, App. St., etc.  None of those schools deserve a shot right?

Think that kid from UCF a few years back isn't  proud of the time he beat Bama?  Think the App. St. players won't tell their grandkids of the time they beat Michigan?  List goes on and on.  It sucks seeing a team win 70-10, but when David wins it is even better. I do think teams should play at least 2 and 2 - non-bcs OC games and bcs OC games.  But I don't like eliminating the little guy altogether.  IMO that will only cause greater disparity between the big schools and little.

Snook

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 9083
Offline
#31 : September 04, 2007, 01:06:30 PM

Good idea Snook. Cut out any chance the smaller schools have of making a name, making some money, and gaining exposure.

I mean, you are right, Troy didn't deserve to play with FSU last year, UCF didn't deserve to beat Alabama a few years back or NC State this year, not to mention Wyoming this year, App. St., etc. None of those schools deserve a shot right?

Think that kid from UCF a few years back isn't proud of the time he beat Bama? Think the App. St. players won't tell their grandkids of the time they beat Michigan? List goes on and on. It sucks seeing a team win 70-10, but when David wins it is even better. I do think teams should play at least 2 and 2 - non-bcs OC games and bcs OC games. But I don't like eliminating the little guy altogether. IMO that will only cause greater disparity between the big schools and little.

Cut out any chance?  The BCS has already done that for lower tier schools.  Its almost IMPOSSIBLE for a non-BCS team to win the national title in the current system.  So why even have them in the same division as BCS schools?  THAT'S my point.

Why have teams in Division I-A if they can't win its "championship"?  What's the point of that?

I NEVER said teams don't "deserve" a shot to play other teams.  NO where did I say that.  But why have teams in a "division" if their only purpose is to be schedule filler for bigger schools?

College football needs a better system of determining a champion.  A playoff will never happen.  But changes need to be made.  And slimming down the number of teams in Division I-A is where they need to start.


dbtb135

*
Practice Squad

Posts : 0
Offline
#32 : September 04, 2007, 03:22:18 PM

Kinf of funny DBT, because you just used my point to make your argument.

I said App. St. used a similar offense as USC, OSU, and had some speed and used it to exploit Michigan.  You couldn't seem to grasp that I didn't say App. St. Offense was as good as those teams, just that they played a similar style and schemed against Michigan after seeing they couldn't handle the offense.  Now to make your point you say small schools have to use scheme to compete.  LOL.  Thanks for the laugh.  I guess you just wanted to argue just to argue.

Bowling Green, and a lot of Mac schools and smaller schools run more wide-open offenses and it doesn't get them anywhere. Scheme has me thinking of the old Houston offenses, Hawaii, Texas Tech, Boise, Utah's craziness. Things that work....consistently. Appalachian St just outplayed Michigan. Not to mention you cannot compare USC and OSU's offenses to some small school who's the flavor of the month, they beat up almost everybody's defense last season. That's just a crap comparison. OSU and SC outclassed Michigan's D, Appalachian St doesn't, and thats EXACTLY what made the win so impressive.

My point was not centered around small teams schemes, but whatever helps you sleep at night. Not surprising though that you'd find a way to turn my comment into a pat on your back......

dbtb135

*
Practice Squad

Posts : 0
Offline
#33 : September 04, 2007, 03:29:02 PM

There;'s a big chunk o' change rolling around in playoffs. If everyone gets a piece of the pie it certainly does help the small schools.

First, they get name recognition just by being in the playoffs. That's how they "get their names out there".  Winning doesn't help all that much - see UNT which was a winner for a long stretch but there's no sustainability because they are basically boned by the bowl system.

Second, they get a recruiting boost by playing for the title. Think about it, instead of signing with Ole Miss to play in the God Forsaken Bowl maybe some of those kids tramp over to Troy for a shot to win the Sunbelt. There's no doubt that the ability to get "to" the Dance has helped mid majors in college basketball and it is a reason that is a lot more even.

Third, the increased jack might help them hold on to the good coaches. Better coaches = better play and better recruiting.

1. Who gets in the playoffs? Every conference winner? Then, more likely than not, we're going to end up with more one-sided games that the original poster was whining about....

2. College basketball is nothing like college football. Even if a playoff was in place, it would never get big enough to include but one or two of the smaller schools.

3. As much as I'd like to see good coaches stay with the programs they've helped pick up, once that "prestige" program like a Tennessee or Florida or Texas comes by offering almost as much money, those guys will be off that campus before the ink can dry...



Guest
#34 : September 05, 2007, 07:52:01 AM

Keep trying DBT.  Anyone who watched that Mich-App. St. game can see why they won.  SPEED on OFFENSE and running a spread similar to the one OSU and USC used to tear up Michigan's D.  Nowehere did I say App. St. had as much talent or was as good as USC or OSU.  But I has become apparent that Michigan cannot handle a spread with speed.  If you watched that game and didn't think the App. St. offensive players weren't as fast or faster than the Michigan defense you don't know much about football.

App. St. used a previous scheme and formula which Michigan had proven they could not defend - that is a FACT.  You can't seem to grasp this concept in my evaluation of the game but like to use the analogy to make another point.  That is hypocritical.

jsunm73

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1872
Offline
#35 : September 05, 2007, 01:51:31 PM

unfortunately i disagree.college has more teams,more upsets,more excitement,more spirit.as for lopsided games it falls on the smaller(creampuff) school's a.d. he will gladly take money for his university and run.that is why nebraska plays palookaville u.the bigger school gets an easy win while the smaller school gets some fat cash.like 500,000 bucks.just to take a beating.still once in awhile the small school wins and it adds more intrigue to the season.whereas the pros are all about money.no school pride or allegiance to fans.just bags of money sitting in the stands rooting for their teams.so for me college is still better all around.although i can't live without my bucs.go tampa!go canes!

dbtb135

*
Practice Squad

Posts : 0
Offline
#36 : September 05, 2007, 03:27:04 PM

Keep trying DBT.  Anyone who watched that Mich-App. St. game can see why they won.  SPEED on OFFENSE and running a spread similar to the one OSU and USC used to tear up Michigan's D.  Nowehere did I say App. St. had as much talent or was as good as USC or OSU.  But I has become apparent that Michigan cannot handle a spread with speed.  If you watched that game and didn't think the App. St. offensive players weren't as fast or faster than the Michigan defense you don't know much about football.

App. St. used a previous scheme and formula which Michigan had proven they could not defend - that is a FACT.  You can't seem to grasp this concept in my evaluation of the game but like to use the analogy to make another point.  That is hypocritical.

The problem with your analogy is that SC and OSU outclassed Michigan. They had as much, if not more, talent than any other offenses in college football. SC and OSU didn't win because they ran a spread, they won because they were better across the board with among the best lines, WRs, and QBs in the nation, bar none. USC could run whatever offense they wanted with the way their line was handling Michigan's. Appalachian St didn't have that, they just put out tons more effort than Michigan. So no, it's nothing like Michigan losing to SC and OSU.

And this somehow comes off my original statement that Michigan's defense wasn't as good as last year's (which you have yet to confront) and that went a ways in evening the odds (which you have yet to confront), and that Michigan's struggles defensively against THE TOP offenses in the nation is a poor basis on whether or not they were a good defense last season (which of course you ignore). So thank you so much for another one of your great additions to the board....



Guest
#37 : September 05, 2007, 04:22:22 PM

Still waiting for you great contribution.

The point is scheme professor. Michigan has shown a propensity over the past 10+ years of struggling against teams that spread the field with fast WR and short quick slants and intermediate routes.  This is a fact based on years of history and years of defenses.  Of course the players change year in and year out as they do in all of CFB.  But fact remains Michigan has struggled against this type of approach for a long time.  App. St. knew this and exploited it.  I stated this.  You can't seem to grasp it. 

Maybe you can get it this time? 

dbtb135

*
Practice Squad

Posts : 0
Offline
#38 : September 05, 2007, 08:17:47 PM

Still waiting for you great contribution.

My great contribution is the humor I get out of posting, then watching you side-step every single point I make, THEN trying to say that I didn't make one single point or argument in the other topic that you locked. Just top notch hilarity right there, and ironically enough, hypocritical.

The point is scheme professor. Michigan has shown a propensity over the past 10+ years of struggling against teams that spread the field with fast WR and short quick slants and intermediate routes.  This is a fact based on years of history and years of defenses.  Of course the players change year in and year out as they do in all of CFB.  But fact remains Michigan has struggled against this type of approach for a long time.  App. St. knew this and exploited it.  I stated this.  You can't seem to grasp it. 

Maybe you can get it this time?

And I disagree based on the fact that those teams that you compared them to beat Michigan (and many other's) with talent rather than effort like App St managed to squeak out. They didn't have trouble with OSU or SC because they ran a spread offense, but because they were the best offenses in the nation and just about everybody struggled with THAT. But you know what's even better than you UNDERSTANDING and accepting that is you just repeating yourself over and over again and claiming I don't understand what you're saying. Genius!



Guest
#39 : September 05, 2007, 09:11:30 PM

The only sidestepping is YOU.  I have provided verifiable evidence which you obviously can't comprehend.  So yeah, i'm done talking to a rock here.

I'll sit back and laugh at you tooting your own horn and dishing out insults all the while making zero sense and proving to lack knowledge of football. 

dbtb135

*
Practice Squad

Posts : 0
Offline
#40 : September 05, 2007, 09:36:33 PM

The only sidestepping is YOU.  I have provided verifiable evidence which you obviously can't comprehend.  So yeah, i'm done talking to a rock here.

I'll sit back and laugh at you tooting your own horn and dishing out insults all the while making zero sense and proving to lack knowledge of football.

Haha. I've responded to everything you've said, you've responded to nothing I've said and only repeated yourself. I've pointed out time and time again points that you have yet to say ONE WORD on, and you've side-stepped them without so much as a mention. I even called you out in the other thread, which you of course ignored and continued repeating yourself. Thats all you've done, is repeat yourself.

And I also find it hilarious that this entire discussion has had you constantly being condescending and now with an insult after whining about being insulted. Yeah, all you've done is talk down to me this entire time, and you want to act all innocent. Makes about as much sense as you repeating yourself 10 billion times and acting like you've proven something. Great job. And then there's me calling you out on your tooting your own horn, only to see you parrot me while all I'm trying to get is for you to break out of your broken record response and address the points I've tried to make, but to no avail. And I know, that is so incredibly hard for you, so I'll give you all the time you need.....

A round of applause for USC Rules, bravo man! Just great, you jumping through hoops to avoid the things I've mentioned and somehow trying to pull off a "you're side-stepping" argument. Thats just plain effort man. Guts and effort. Give it up for Houdini, for trying to make the impossible possible.

dbtb135

*
Practice Squad

Posts : 0
Offline
#41 : September 06, 2007, 03:19:06 AM

The only thing you are good as is insults and then copying what I say to try and make your point.

Copying? Right, I'd never even heard of schemes before you came along. Full of yourself.

Great football knowledge you are displaying here.

Keep on contributing!

What I say may not be popular here, but you can't deny the fact that I have knowledge and back my points up.  You its all names and insults.  Keep it up!

The biggest insult is you claiming to "back up your points" when I call you out on them and you just repeat yourself and don't defend them.

Funny enough, I just did it again in my last post, and here you are still complaining about insult, while insulting me and once again giving the "Ole!" to my challenges.

So, ok. Come back, tell me I'm and idiot, and that you backed your points, and that I'm insulting you again. Really, it'd be a totally unexpected move from you, a downright shocker. Or maybe that would be you actually backing up something? I really don't know, it's one of the two....



Guest
#42 : September 06, 2007, 12:05:57 AM

The only thing you are good as is insults and then copying what I say to try and make your point.

Great football knowledge you are displaying here.

Keep on contributing!

What I say may not be popular here, but you can't deny the fact that I have knowledge and back my points up.  You its all names and insults.  Keep it up! 



Guest
#43 : September 06, 2007, 09:36:30 AM

Do you dream about me at night?  Sure seems like it.

Still waiting to see you actually bring something to the table. Since you haven't refuted anything I have said with any shred of evidence, I'll sit back and laugh at how much I am getting to you and just let the mountain of evidence I have brought to the table speak for itself.


Tick...tick....tick...tick.....

PS:  Don't usually watch ESPN, but can't help but laugh the last couple times I turned it on and they ALL support my theory that Michigan has LONG struggled against the spread offense and this is precisely what App. St. did to exploit them.  Yep, I'm the idiot.  The idiot with an entire network of analysts supporting what he said soon after the game.  Meanwhile I've yet to see anyone anywhere support you.....of course it's hard to support nothing.

Game over.

dbtb135

*
Practice Squad

Posts : 0
Offline
#44 : September 06, 2007, 04:23:24 PM

Do you dream about me at night?  Sure seems like it.

Still waiting to see you actually bring something to the table. Since you haven't refuted anything I have said with any shred of evidence, I'll sit back and laugh at how much I am getting to you and just let the mountain of evidence I have brought to the table speak for itself.

For the last time, I originally refuted your arguments in the topic YOU closed, and YOU never responded. I've called YOU out on it again and again, and you've tucked your tail and ran as far away from THAT argument as you could by repeating "you don't understand what I'm saying" VERBATIM instead of actually responding to what I've said. I don't even know what to do anymore really. I've outlined the exact times when I've called you out to counter a point repeatedly and none have been answered. I've called you out my last 6 posts to even try to answer the points I've brought up and you've answered 0 of those. That kind of cowardice is hard to find when people are thousands of miles away hiding anonymously behind their screens. The laughs just keep on coming.

Also, you're getting to me and yet you're the one crying about getting "insulted".


Tick...tick....tick...tick.....

PS:  Don't usually watch ESPN, but can't help but laugh the last couple times I turned it on and they ALL support my theory that Michigan has LONG struggled against the spread offense and this is precisely what App. St. did to exploit them.  Yep, I'm the idiot.  The idiot with an entire network of analysts supporting what he said soon after the game.  Meanwhile I've yet to see anyone anywhere support you.....of course it's hard to support nothing.

Game over.

HAHAHAHA! "I don't usually watch ESPN, but I trust their analysts know enough to prove me right". ESPN's analysts are terrible. But of course, people must think that since they're the biggest, they must know what they're talking about. Watching the likes of Sean Salisbury, Mark May, and Steve Phillips throw up on national TV would probably be the most informative thing they ever offered to the network.
Page: 1 2 3 4
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  College Football Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: College Football.....Where's the sport? « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools