2009 College Football Thread

[Dave B]

Yeah, because encouraging teams to run up the score in hopes of securing a higher ranking is the sportsman-way to do things.

[Eli]

Yeah, because encouraging teams to run up the score in hopes of securing a higher ranking is the sportsman-way to do things.

Who cares?

[Dave B]

So who should care about how much a team beats another team by (other than gamblers)?

As a football official, I can attest that a majority of our problems happen when another team is perceived to be "running up the score". I've seen near brawls between opposing coaches, cheap shots by players, and other problems that occur when a team piles it on. Plus it only serves as future motivation for the other team. Good coaches know when to call off the dogs. Running up the score is a chicken-shit thing to do on the field, but if all anyone pays attention to is the numbers on a paper, then I guess to them it would be no big deal.

[Tony]

Yeah, because encouraging teams to run up the score in hopes of securing a higher ranking is the sportsman-way to do things.

Who cares?

Because it's not entertaining to watch Goliath pummel David. A win against a small school doesn't prove anything no matter how many points they score.

[Kermit, B.]

So who should care about how much a team beats another team by (other than gamblers)?

As a football official, I can attest that a majority of our problems happen when another team is perceived to be "running up the score". I've seen near brawls between opposing coaches, cheap shots by players, and other problems that occur when a team piles it on. Plus it only serves as future motivation for the other team. Good coaches know when to call off the dogs. Running up the score is a chicken-shit thing to do on the field, but if all anyone pays attention to is the numbers on a paper, then I guess to them it would be no big deal.

I wish Weis would run up a score rather than just his cholesterol count.  HEY-O!

[Ghost of Dave Rosello]

Yeah, because encouraging teams to run up the score in hopes of securing a higher ranking is the sportsman-way to do things.

Who cares?

Because it's not entertaining to watch Goliath pummel David. A win against a small school doesn't prove anything no matter how many points they score.

Yep, why should Florida get bonus points for humiliating Florida International while somebody else is penalized for a close victory over a conference rival.

[Eli]

So who should care about how much a team beats another team by ...?

Anyone who's interested in figuring out who the best team is.  I understand the concerns about running up the score, but margin of victory is useful in determining how good a team is.  You really think that Iowa's two-point win over Michigan should be counted the same as if they would have won by 24?

[Chuck to Chuck]

Yeah, because encouraging teams to run up the score in hopes of securing a higher ranking is the sportsman-way to do things.

Who cares?

Because it's not entertaining to watch Goliath pummel David. A win against a small school doesn't prove anything no matter how many points they score.

Yep, why should Florida get bonus points for humiliating Florida International while somebody else is penalized for a close victory over a conference rival.

Can Iowa get bonus points for not even playing Illinois?

[Waco Kid]

The BCS, as always, is a pile of shit.

[Tony]

So who should care about how much a team beats another team by ...?

Anyone who's interested in figuring out who the best team is.  I understand the concerns about running up the score, but margin of victory is useful in determining how good a team is.  You really think that Iowa's two-point win over Michigan should be counted the same as if they would have won by 24?

No, but at a certain point it is ridiculous. Maybe all wins by 20 or more points should count the same. That way solid victories register, but there is no incentive to humiliate the losing team.

[CT III]

So who should care about how much a team beats another team by ...?

Anyone who's interested in figuring out who the best team is.  I understand the concerns about running up the score, but margin of victory is useful in determining how good a team is.  You really think that Iowa's two-point win over Michigan should be counted the same as if they would have won by 24?

Um, yeah.

[PenFoe]

So who should care about how much a team beats another team by ...?

Anyone who's interested in figuring out who the best team is.  I understand the concerns about running up the score, but margin of victory is useful in determining how good a team is.  You really think that Iowa's two-point win over Michigan should be counted the same as if they would have won by 24?

This creates a secondary issue too in that it then affects future schedule.
The early non-conference schedule goes to shit when you start factoring in the win differential (or point differential or whatever it's called).

[Philberto]

So who should care about how much a team beats another team by ...?

Anyone who's interested in figuring out who the best team is.  I understand the concerns about running up the score, but margin of victory is useful in determining how good a team is.  You really think that Iowa's two-point win over Michigan should be counted the same as if they would have won by 24?

No, but at a certain point it is ridiculous. Maybe all wins by 20 or more points should count the same. That way solid victories register, but there is no incentive to humiliate the losing team.

I would think they ought to be able to have a system that counted Margin of Victory and its relationship to how good the team is.

But really, why worry about this? The only thing that should matter is scraping the dumbass BCS and getting a fucking playoff. It's simple to do:

Well, regardless, I'll still proclaim my dissatisfaction until a playoff is installed. A decent way to do this would be to set a strict 11 game schedule. Get rid of the conference championship games. Have the season be 12 weeks. One bye-week. Starts on the first week of September. Based off of what I looked at, it looks like the season would be done many years with one week of November left. If there's a problem, start on the last weekend of August. That one week of November and the first week of December will have the first two rounds of a 16 team playoff. Then have a break so the "student-athletes" don't have their finals weeks' fucked. After Christmas, have your final two weeks for the championship. You can easily name all these playoff games with names of 15 of the current bowls. As for the other 19 bowls, they can still be played. Currently, the EagleBank Bowl, the magicJack Bowl, etc. mean nothing as to the national title scene, so there is no reason, these can't be played on the side. One tweak I wouldn't mind is that it got extended to a 24 team playoff with a first week of play-in games. Only one extra week required.

One contention that I've heard some people say is that someone still gets snubbed. That's true. I do say this though. I'd rather argue over #16-#17 or #24-#25 than #2-#3. I think that anyone would rather agree that they'd prefer to see someone like Northwester, or Ole Miss get snubbed for a national title chance than Texas. It's much more reasonable that way.

[CT III]

So who should care about how much a team beats another team by ...?

Anyone who's interested in figuring out who the best team is.  I understand the concerns about running up the score, but margin of victory is useful in determining how good a team is.  You really think that Iowa's two-point win over Michigan should be counted the same as if they would have won by 24?

No, but at a certain point it is ridiculous. Maybe all wins by 20 or more points should count the same. That way solid victories register, but there is no incentive to humiliate the losing team.

I would think they ought to be able to have a system that counted Margin of Victory and its relationship to how good the team is.

But really, why worry about this? The only thing that should matter is scraping the dumbass BCS and getting a fucking playoff. It's simple to do:

Well, regardless, I'll still proclaim my dissatisfaction until a playoff is installed. A decent way to do this would be to set a strict 11 game schedule. Get rid of the conference championship games. Have the season be 12 weeks. One bye-week. Starts on the first week of September. Based off of what I looked at, it looks like the season would be done many years with one week of November left. If there's a problem, start on the last weekend of August. That one week of November and the first week of December will have the first two rounds of a 16 team playoff. Then have a break so the "student-athletes" don't have their finals weeks' fucked. After Christmas, have your final two weeks for the championship. You can easily name all these playoff games with names of 15 of the current bowls. As for the other 19 bowls, they can still be played. Currently, the EagleBank Bowl, the magicJack Bowl, etc. mean nothing as to the national title scene, so there is no reason, these can't be played on the side. One tweak I wouldn't mind is that it got extended to a 24 team playoff with a first week of play-in games. Only one extra week required.

One contention that I've heard some people say is that someone still gets snubbed. That's true. I do say this though. I'd rather argue over #16-#17 or #24-#25 than #2-#3. I think that anyone would rather agree that they'd prefer to see someone like Northwester, or Ole Miss get snubbed for a national title chance than Texas. It's much more reasonable that way.

Or we could just watch pro football.

[Andy]

So who should care about how much a team beats another team by ...?

Anyone who's interested in figuring out who the best team is.  I understand the concerns about running up the score, but margin of victory is useful in determining how good a team is.  You really think that Iowa's two-point win over Michigan should be counted the same as if they would have won by 24?

Yeah, Iowa should get bonus points for needing to block two Northern Iowa field goals to win in the first week of the season.