|
Post by 1percenter on Jan 8, 2019 12:52:42 GMT -5
Invitational Champions 2014 #4 seed 2015 #2 seed 2016 #2 seed 2017 #4 seed 2018 #2 seed
#1 seed has a record of 3-5 in the Invitational with 0 Championships
The 4 seed has won the Invitational 40% of the time, I wonder what #5 or #6 could do?
|
|
|
Post by 1percenter on Jan 8, 2019 13:17:30 GMT -5
Record by seed in the Invitational Era #1 seed (3-5) #2 seed (7-2) - 3 Titles #3 seed (1-5) #4 seed (4-3) - 2 Titles
|
|
|
Post by dude on Jan 8, 2019 13:18:55 GMT -5
Under the playoff system being #1 or #2 doesn't matter as long as you are in the top 4. From that point it all works itself out on the field. Accept that the #1 has yet to win the playoff I would use the Final AP as the decider because they seem to have it 100% correct every year. 2019 Final AP Poll1 Clemson 2 Alabama 3 Ohio State 4 Oklahoma 5 Notre Dame 6 LSU 7a Florida 7b Georgia 9 Texas 10 Washington State
|
|
|
Post by 1percenter on Jan 8, 2019 13:22:37 GMT -5
lol at 4 SEC teams in the Top 7. The SEC went 6-6 in bowl games.
|
|
|
Post by 1percenter on Jan 8, 2019 13:24:14 GMT -5
I can see next years preseason Top 7 now
1 Alabama 2 Georgia 3 Florida 4 Auburn 5 Clemson - better put them in so we don't look biased 6 LSU 7 Kentucky
|
|
|
Post by maplecityjake on Jan 8, 2019 20:01:27 GMT -5
Clemson with 3rd National Title since 1981. That's same amount as OSU/UM combined since 1970.
|
|
|
Post by DrTorch on Jan 8, 2019 22:39:19 GMT -5
More. UM only has half a National Title. Fyi.
|
|
|
Post by maplecityjake on Jan 9, 2019 10:08:46 GMT -5
Thanks for reminding me. And thanks to Phil Fulmer...
|
|
|
Post by cbus on Jan 9, 2019 13:12:48 GMT -5
Playoff record by conference: Big 10 2-2 PAC 12 1-2 Ind 0-1 Big 12- 0-3 ACC- 5-3 SEC 7-4
|
|
|
Post by sportsjock on May 4, 2019 6:12:38 GMT -5
It is confirmed, the NCAA is not backing away from their strict interpretation of targeting and the often unfair at times, immediate ejection of violator.
We have seen time and time again where there was no player intent involved, in fact, the player making every attempt to move his head to the side to avoid helmet to helmet contact, only to be ejected anyway. I think it's a good rule, with player safety taking absolute precedent, but in most cases, a warning and 15 yard penalty would have been the more appropriate punishment.
The good result is, coaches will increasingly emphasize the need to avoid high hits, more rugby style tackling and focusing on hitting on/between the numbers.
We will never see the sometimes, vicious hits that made Jack Tatum legendary. Foryunately, those days are being relegated to the past.
|
|
|
Post by fbfan on May 4, 2019 7:21:47 GMT -5
It is confirmed, the NCAA is not backing away from their strict interpretation of targeting and the often unfair at times, immediate ejection of violator. We have seen time and time again where there was no player intent involved, in fact, the player making every attempt to move his head to the side to avoid helmet to helmet contact, only to be ejected anyway. I think it's a good rule, with player safety taking absolute precedent, but in most cases, a warning and 15 yard penalty would have been the more appropriate punishment. The good result is, coaches will increasingly emphasize the need to avoid high hits, more rugby style tackling and focusing on hitting on/between the numbers. We will never see the sometimes, vicious hits that made Jack Tatum legendary. Foryunately, those days are being relegated to the past. Playing devil's advocate, should offensive players who lower their heads before initiating contact be penalized also? Think of a 230# back who tries to "run over" a 175# cornerback. Should the RB have a "duty" to try to run away from the tackler instead of over him? Another thing I've wondered about is an offensive ball carrier's stiff arm to the helmet of a defender. A defensive player is penalized for a "blow to the head" if he initiates similar contact. Thanks for the football discussion, it is missed.
|
|
|
Post by sportsjock on May 5, 2019 5:30:21 GMT -5
It is confirmed, the NCAA is not backing away from their strict interpretation of targeting and the often unfair at times, immediate ejection of violator. We have seen time and time again where there was no player intent involved, in fact, the player making every attempt to move his head to the side to avoid helmet to helmet contact, only to be ejected anyway. I think it's a good rule, with player safety taking absolute precedent, but in most cases, a warning and 15 yard penalty would have been the more appropriate punishment. The good result is, coaches will increasingly emphasize the need to avoid high hits, more rugby style tackling and focusing on hitting on/between the numbers. We will never see the sometimes, vicious hits that made Jack Tatum legendary. Foryunately, those days are being relegated to the past. Playing devil's advocate, should offensive players who lower their heads before initiating contact be penalized also? Think of a 230# back who tries to "run over" a 175# cornerback. Should the RB have a "duty" to try to run away from the tackler instead of over him? Another thing I've wondered about is an offensive ball carrier's stiff arm to the helmet of a defender. A defensive player is penalized for a "blow to the head" if he initiates similar contact. Thanks for the football discussion, it is missed. We all know why the over-reaction and so many questionable flags, the NCAA is doing everything it can to avoid the massive lawsuits the NFL is faced with.
|
|
|
Post by Willard Fillmore on Jun 25, 2019 18:51:11 GMT -5
The state of California legislators are in the process of passing a law stating that college athletes attending California Universities be allowed to profit from their likenesses while in college. The head of the NCAA warned California, if they pass this legislation the NCAA could ban their Universities from competing for NCAA Championships.
If passed it could be a big recruiting tool to attract out of state athletes to California schools.
|
|
|
Post by fbfan on Jun 25, 2019 20:40:11 GMT -5
While I generally agree that the rules concerning an athlete's names and likenesses need changed, an individual state making a law is not the way to go about it. Another example of the typical arrogance of the Democratic controlled state government in California wanting to influence what people in other states in the Union must do. Riddle me this: What is the difference between the State of California and the Confederate States of America?
|
|
|
Post by Green Falcon on Jun 25, 2019 22:56:16 GMT -5
Somebody finally got the ball rolling
|
|
|
Post by Green Falcon on Jun 25, 2019 22:57:26 GMT -5
Would this affect private schools (i.e. Stanford)
|
|
|
Post by utsherman on Jun 26, 2019 9:23:11 GMT -5
While I generally agree that the rules concerning an athlete's names and likenesses need changed, an individual state making a law is not the way to go about it. Another example of the typical arrogance of the Democratic controlled state government in California wanting to influence what people in other states in the Union must do. Riddle me this: What is the difference between the State of California and the Confederate States of America? Riddle me this: If it's just arrogant Democrats that want reform, then why did U.S. Rep Mark Walker (R) introduce the 'Student-Athlete Equity Act' in North Carolina back in March? While NC may have initially been a Democratic state, they have voted Republican in 9 of the last 10 presidential elections - including 2016.
|
|
|
Post by redskinfan04 on Jun 26, 2019 12:56:42 GMT -5
While I generally agree that the rules concerning an athlete's names and likenesses need changed, an individual state making a law is not the way to go about it. Another example of the typical arrogance of the Democratic controlled state government in California wanting to influence what people in other states in the Union must do. Riddle me this: What is the difference between the State of California and the Confederate States of America? Riddle me this: If it's just arrogant Democrats that want reform, then why did U.S. Rep Mark Walker (R) introduce the 'Student-Athlete Equity Act' in North Carolina back in March? While NC may have initially been a Democratic state, they have voted Republican in 9 of the last 10 presidential elections - including 2016. This is the cfb section not politics. Spare us please
|
|
|
Post by utsherman on Jun 26, 2019 14:37:27 GMT -5
Riddle me this: If it's just arrogant Democrats that want reform, then why did U.S. Rep Mark Walker (R) introduce the 'Student-Athlete Equity Act' in North Carolina back in March? While NC may have initially been a Democratic state, they have voted Republican in 9 of the last 10 presidential elections - including 2016. This is the cfb section not politics. Spare us please Apologies. You're officially spared. Carry on.
|
|
|
Post by fbfan on Jun 26, 2019 14:51:30 GMT -5
Riddle me this: If it's just arrogant Democrats that want reform, then why did U.S. Rep Mark Walker (R) introduce the 'Student-Athlete Equity Act' in North Carolina back in March? While NC may have initially been a Democratic state, they have voted Republican in 9 of the last 10 presidential elections - including 2016. This is the cfb section not politics. Spare us please The state of California legislators passing a law to change NCAA rules are the ones injecting politics into cfb. Tell them to spare you.
|
|
|
Post by fbfan on Jun 26, 2019 16:30:49 GMT -5
While I generally agree that the rules concerning an athlete's names and likenesses need changed, an individual state making a law is not the way to go about it. Another example of the typical arrogance of the Democratic controlled state government in California wanting to influence what people in other states in the Union must do. Riddle me this: What is the difference between the State of California and the Confederate States of America? Riddle me this: If it's just arrogant Democrats that want reform, then why did U.S. Rep Mark Walker (R) introduce the 'Student-Athlete Equity Act' in North Carolina back in March? While NC may have initially been a Democratic state, they have voted Republican in 9 of the last 10 presidential elections - including 2016. U.S. Rep Mark Walker(R) did not introduce his bill in North Carolina. He introduced it at the NATIONAL level in the U.S. House of Representatives, where something like this needs to be handled, if at all, by the politicians. (by the way, how is it doing? Has Nancy brought it to the floor yet? California's bill has already passed their state Senate) There is some interest within the NCAA to look at this issue. That is where the effort should be made, not by a single state's legislature that thinks it can dictate to the other state's the way things should be.
|
|
|
Post by Green Falcon on Jun 26, 2019 17:21:57 GMT -5
The NCAA isn't going pass something that goes against its interests. And the NCAA isn't going to risk not having UCLA and USC on the national stage and lose the LA market or mess up the PAC12. Either the government intervenes (like with Title IX) or nothing happens.
|
|
|
Post by Willard Fillmore on Jun 26, 2019 19:42:17 GMT -5
While I generally agree that the rules concerning an athlete's names and likenesses need changed, an individual state making a law is not the way to go about it. Another example of the typical arrogance of the Democratic controlled state government in California wanting to influence what people in other states in the Union must do. Riddle me this: What is the difference between the State of California and the Confederate States of America? Riddle me this: If it's just arrogant Democrats that want reform, then why did U.S. Rep Mark Walker (R) introduce the 'Student-Athlete Equity Act' in North Carolina back in March? While NC may have initially been a Democratic state, they have voted Republican in 9 of the last 10 presidential elections - including 2016. F-ing prevaricator, hate monger. NO WHERE in fbfan's post is the phrase "arrogant Democrats" used. With that being said, YOU my friend, are a precise example.
|
|
|
Post by utsherman on Jun 27, 2019 9:48:58 GMT -5
Riddle me this: If it's just arrogant Democrats that want reform, then why did U.S. Rep Mark Walker (R) introduce the 'Student-Athlete Equity Act' in North Carolina back in March? While NC may have initially been a Democratic state, they have voted Republican in 9 of the last 10 presidential elections - including 2016. F-ing prevaricator, hate monger. NO WHERE in fbfan's post is the phrase "arrogant Democrats" used. With that being said, YOU my friend, are a precise example. <sigh> I didn't directly quote his post, Willard. Are we really doing this now? Show the good people where I used quotation marks. The italicization of 'arrogant Democrats' is used for emphasis, meaning you want to emphasize a certain word of phrase in a sentence. Here, I'll use quotations so you can understand. The post referred to the "arrogance of the Democratic controlled state government in California". I made the gigantic leap to deduce that the quote is essentially generalizing all Democrats in the state government of California as arrogant - considering no specific individuals were named separate from the larger group. Oh, see what I did there with the italics? It's for emphasis. I mean, you can look these things up when you calm down. Secondly, fbfan and I, as well as many others, hold different opinions on varying topics, and can simply agree to disagree as we have exhibited on other threads. Of course folks like to needle each other and often get the last word, but at the end of the day, it's not my aim to attack anyone's personal character. You, on the other hand, seem incapable of holding dialogue that does not involve character assassination - at least where I'm concerned. I'm not sure how you find the daily courage to lob expletives from behind that keyboard. Congratulations on the restraint, and the thick skin. Oh, and I'm not your friend, Willard. But I'll look forward to your next nonsensical rant. But lastly, I'm really sorry redskinfan04. I tried to disengage and gracefully bow out, but I took the bait. Cheers!
|
|
|
Post by Willard Fillmore on Jun 27, 2019 12:29:19 GMT -5
You're right, your semantics are poor. Then you were proven to be incorrect(being kind) on what you said happened in North Carolina. ALL CAPS are used to emphasis words. Italics are used to show facetiousness. Thus, you showed that you DID NOT think the Democrat controlled government in California was arrogant. You're welcome!
|
|
|
Post by fbfan on Sept 12, 2019 11:50:36 GMT -5
The California legislature has finally acted, and put this topic back in the news. From an article in Sports Illustrated:
"California's bill to allow college athletes to be paid for the use of their name, likeness and image is headed to Gov. Gavin Newsom after the legislation was passed unanimously by the State Senate on Wednesday. According to the Los Angeles Times, California's Senate approved the Fair Pay to Play Act with a 39–0 vote after the Assembly passed the bill 73–0 on Monday. The Fair Pay to Play Act has already earned a few notable endorsements, including one from Lakers star LeBron James. The bill would not force schools to pay athletes, but rather allow athletes to hire agents who can procure business and sponsorship deals. California schools and the NCAA have long opposed the bill, which would make it impossible for schools to follow the NCAA's amateurism rules. On Wednesday, the NCAA sent a letter to Newsom calling the state's legislation "unconstitutional." "If the bill becomes law and California’s 58 NCAA schools are compelled to allow an unrestricted name, image and likeness scheme, it would erase the critical distinction between college and professional athletics," Wednesday's letter read. "Right now, nearly half a million student-athletes in all 50 states compete under the same rules. This bill would remove that essential element of fairness and equal treatment that forms the bedrock of college sports." Newsom now has 30 days to sign or veto the bill."
The Democratic Socialist Republic of California is doing a good job of keeping the U.S. Supreme Court busy. Hope RBG can take the work load.
|
|
|
Post by fbfan on Sept 12, 2019 12:04:51 GMT -5
Perhaps Ohio should pass a law extending eligibility to more than 5 years. That way, J.T. Barrett could play a few more seasons.
|
|
|
Post by Birdman on Sept 12, 2019 14:20:37 GMT -5
Profiting off a players likeness, etc, etc.
My issue...
Take football only as the example. Given all the FBS schools and the total number of players in all, how many out of the masses would actually make a considerable amount of money? 1%, 5%?
Everyone says they’re already getting paid, with a free college education and that is true, but there is more. Does anyone know how much the football program at OSU spends on every player individually?
From dietitians, to doctors, to medical services, room and board, meal plans, personal training (strength coaches count.) tutoring, and everything else offered and taken by a college football athlete, is free of charge given they just play. Anyone else all that stuff costs money.
I am not against players profiting, but let’s not act like these poor souls are nothing more than work dogs. These players, especially the real good ones, you know the ones that would profit the most, are also getting the most benefits already. Best doctors, best everything.
|
|
tori2
All Conference
2017 Playoff Pick'em Champion
Posts: 312
|
Post by tori2 on Sept 12, 2019 23:01:12 GMT -5
^^^agree
|
|
|
Post by Green Falcon on Sept 13, 2019 6:05:01 GMT -5
I think the biggest problem I see is in the small things. Like if a player wants 10 dollars for their autograph it becomes a gigantic scandal. Or if they want to sell an old jersey they get in trouble. Situations like these are where I think the NCAA goes to far.
|
|