Great societal commentary relevant to our win and the Falcons' loss

BigDanT said:
This is targeting now right? Unfortunately
Click to expand...
Notice how fired up the players get over the block. Hell, that could have been run back for a TD and they would have never seen it because they were celebrating Guyton.
 
gtrower said:
If removing injury-prone hits allows us to play more games then I’m all for it. Seems to have already done that for NFL.
Click to expand...

That's funny, to me the limited number of games is one of the things I like most about football. It's much less of a time commitment to actually follow it. Unfortunately that has been going by the wayside.

I used to watch or at least follow every game in the NFL. Unfortunately that's been changing as they've added more and spread them out over up to four days per week.

College is a little better but still starting to spread out to more than just Thursday and Saturday.
 
andrew said:
That's funny, to me the limited number of games is one of the things I like most about football. It's much less of a time commitment to actually follow it. Unfortunately that has been going by the wayside.

I used to watch or at least follow every game in the NFL. Unfortunately that's been changing as they've added more and spread them out over up to four days per week.

College is a little better but still starting to spread out to more than just Thursday and Saturday.
Click to expand...

I get that argument that each game means more. But that’s at the cost of determining champions. Any sport that can have an undefeated team not be the champion is fundamentally flawed.
 
gtrower said:
I get that argument that each game means more. But that’s at the cost of determining champions. Any sport that can have an undefeated team not be the champion is fundamentally flawed.
Click to expand...

The fact that an undefeated team can be not be champion has way more to do with the structure of the sport than the number of games. Specifically:

A) The number of teams. FBS has 131 teams, which is about four times as many as any of the leagues you mentioned. As far as I'm aware, it would also be 4x bigger than any other sports league in the world.

B) It's made up of independent conferences with different priorities, resouces, operations, even referees. Again, no other sport you mentioned has anything like that. Yes other leagues have conferences and divisions, but they are still part of the same overall organization, share revenue, make decisions together, etc. Nowhere else do you have conference championship games where only part of the schedule counts but then the sport's championship game counts all of the games but also that has to be determined a lot by eyetest because there are very few out of conference games so going just by record wouldn't make sense.

The main way to "fix" how college football determines its champions is not just to slap more games on the season, it's to change the structure to be more simliar to the leagues you mentioned, although of course that comes with its own downsides. But if you keep the structure the way it is and just increase the number of games by 50%, you could easily still end up with an undefeated team that isn't champion.
 
andrew said:
The fact that an undefeated team can be not be champion has way more to do with the structure of the sport than the number of games. Specifically:

A) The number of teams. FBS has 131 teams, which is about four times as many as any of the leagues you mentioned. As far as I'm aware, it would also be 4x bigger than any other sports league in the world.

B) It's made up of independent conferences with different priorities, resouces, operations, even referees. Again, no other sport you mentioned has anything like that. Yes other leagues have conferences and divisions, but they are still part of the same overall organization, share revenue, make decisions together, etc. Nowhere else do you have conference championship games where only part of the schedule counts but then the sport's championship game counts all of the games but also that has to be determined a lot by eyetest because there are very few out of conference games so going just by record wouldn't make sense.

The main way to "fix" how college football determines its champions is not just to slap more games on the season, it's to change the structure to be more simliar to the leagues you mentioned, although of course that comes with its own downsides. But if you keep the structure the way it is and just increase the number of games by 50%, you could easily still end up with an undefeated team that isn't champion.
Click to expand...

Sure there would be other ways. You could do a single elimination tourney and be done in 8 games without more than one undefeated team. But the more games you play in a regular season the less likely you are to have an undefeated team.

Plenty of better systems that could be discussed in another thread. But my main point here is that in the current CFB you can’t play enough college football games to properly determine a champ because teams wouldn’t be able to field a full squad by the end of the season trying to play twice a week (basically a minimum for every other sport in the world).
 
The NFL (over)protecting the QB is a business decision, period. No one wants to to see Zappie play Dalton. Whitlock is just looking for clicks from political lemmings, just like others do with the other lemmings.
 
Am I the only one whose favorite play in football is the crackback block?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top