or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment and Culture › Official 2012 College Football Season Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Official 2012 College Football Season Thread - Page 32

post #466 of 861
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambulance Chaser View Post

Anyone who didn't get in on the first ballot is someone the voters had to think about. Do you want to limit the HOF in that way?

I think there are class size restrictions for each year so maybe not the best example, but to a certain extent, yes.

I mean, Jim Rice, to pull just one of several examples was on the ballot 15 times (FIFTEEN. FUCKING. TIMES.) before he got in to the HOF and he got in because it was the last year he was eligible. What, in the following 14 years, was in place so that by 2009 he was HOF-worthy. He is not an isolated example, either. Dale Murphy next year will likely get in because its the 15th time on the ballot.

Once, maybe twice if you're passed over for the Hall, yeah I'm fine with saying they're not worthy.

And seriously, what is so controversial that saying only the undisputed best-of-the-best ought to be enshrined in a memorial to the greatest players and moments of a sport? I don't get it--by definition it should be exclusive to all but the top 1% of players.

ETA: Look at Jack Morris for an example of why being passed over means you shouldn't get in: Morris has been eligible for the National Baseball Hall of Fame since 2000. From 2000 to 2003, he never received greater than 30% of the vote. He received 40% of the vote for the first time in 2006. In 2010, he received 52.3% of the vote,[7][8] and in 2012, he received 67% of the vote, his highest level of support so far.[9]

Jack. Fucking. Morris. He's going to get in too. All he did was accumulate stats because he had a long career. He was never dominant, never great and didn't leave a mark on the game. But he's going to get in. Did his perfomance in the years between 2010 and 2012 improve by 20%? Nope. He just stayed on the ballot.
post #467 of 861
Ed, I mean this with sincerity, I am glad you're posting again. Especially with sports, you make some interesting posts.
post #468 of 861
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLMountainMan View Post

Ed, I mean this with sincerity, I am glad you're posting again. Especially with sports, you make some interesting posts.

+1
post #469 of 861
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by StephenHero View Post

I thought the SEC was going to eventually make a play on Virginia Tech and NC State? Based on the rumors I hear, that seemed like the logical conclusion from both sides. It expands the SEC footprint into two new states with significant recruiting pools, and would gain support from Florida and South Carolina (which Clemson and Florida State are rumored to not be getting).

Yeah, that's the more likely scenario, assuming they could get the State of Virginia to allow VaTech to leave without UVA. Still, I hold out hope that the SEC will choose to make the better football decision, rather than base it all on expanding the conference footprint. I know I'm tilting windmills, but, dammit, I want the UGA-Clemson rivalry back, and I think both Clemson and FSU would be much more appropriate members than most other schools.
post #470 of 861
Thread Starter 
A friend of mine posted this on my Facebook wall. I thought it was pretty amusing, so I'm sharing.

Why the Rest of the SEC Hates You
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLMountainMan View Post

Ed, I mean this with sincerity, I am glad you're posting again. Especially with sports, you make some interesting posts.

Another +1 to this. Good to have you back, Ed.
post #471 of 861
Quote:
Originally Posted by edinatlanta View Post

I think there are class size restrictions for each year so maybe not the best example, but to a certain extent, yes.
I mean, Jim Rice, to pull just one of several examples was on the ballot 15 times (FIFTEEN. FUCKING. TIMES.) before he got in to the HOF and he got in because it was the last year he was eligible. What, in the following 14 years, was in place so that by 2009 he was HOF-worthy. He is not an isolated example, either. Dale Murphy next year will likely get in because its the 15th time on the ballot.
Once, maybe twice if you're passed over for the Hall, yeah I'm fine with saying they're not worthy.
And seriously, what is so controversial that saying only the undisputed best-of-the-best ought to be enshrined in a memorial to the greatest players and moments of a sport? I don't get it--by definition it should be exclusive to all but the top 1% of players.
ETA: Look at Jack Morris for an example of why being passed over means you shouldn't get in: Morris has been eligible for the National Baseball Hall of Fame since 2000. From 2000 to 2003, he never received greater than 30% of the vote. He received 40% of the vote for the first time in 2006. In 2010, he received 52.3% of the vote,[7][8] and in 2012, he received 67% of the vote, his highest level of support so far.[9]
Jack. Fucking. Morris. He's going to get in too. All he did was accumulate stats because he had a long career. He was never dominant, never great and didn't leave a mark on the game. But he's going to get in. Did his perfomance in the years between 2010 and 2012 improve by 20%? Nope. He just stayed on the ballot.

Every HOF has marginal members that don't belong there, but I'd rather let those guys in than keep deserving guys out. Sometimes five years is not long enough time to put a player's career in historical context. Or voters just get it wrong. For example, I think it is a crime that Cris Carter is not in the football HOF. He'll get in eventually, and we'll all wonder what took the voters so long to do the obvious.
post #472 of 861
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLMountainMan View Post

Ed, I mean this with sincerity, I am glad you're posting again. Especially with sports, you make some interesting posts.

Thanks guys, the only reason I started up again is I was on vacay last week. Dunno if I'll stick around.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrG View Post

Yeah, that's the more likely scenario, assuming they could get the State of Virginia to allow VaTech to leave without UVA. Still, I hold out hope that the SEC will choose to make the better football decision, rather than base it all on expanding the conference footprint. I know I'm tilting windmills, but, dammit, I want the UGA-Clemson rivalry back, and I think both Clemson and FSU would be much more appropriate members than most other schools.

Other than this year, do you really think VT would be a bad addition? They have a delta of -2 from their pre-season to end-of-season ranking since 1989, which considering they've almost never left the top-25 since 1998 and spent a ton of time in the top-10 I'd say that's a phenomenal run (but Beamer Ball doesn't win bowls, so YMMV). I've lost my historic ranking trends app so not going to look for that.

They have basically a .333 win percentage against SEC schools since 1921, while UGA and UF both are around .600, that's their conference and have had greater runs than VT. Looking at SC, they are at .350 in that time period against SEC foes.

W/r/t Clemson, lord do they want to be an SEC school. They are kinda up and down though as a program.

Also, as much as it might pain FLMM to read this, why would FSU want to leave the ACC as long as it is an AQ (or whatever they will call it when the playoff start)? Perennially weak competition they will get to beat up to waltz into a bowl, they remain in an academically superior conference and still get a shit ton of money. If they had gone to the SEC, the 90s would probably not have happened for FSU.
post #473 of 861
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLMountainMan View Post

Ed, I mean this with sincerity, I am glad you're posting again. Especially with sports, you make some interesting posts.

THIS.
post #474 of 861
The Big 10-Plus-Whatever deciding they needed Maryland and Rutgers just blows my mind and really dilutes the characteristics/personality of that conference.
post #475 of 861
Quote:
Originally Posted by HORNS View Post

The Big 10-Plus-Whatever deciding they needed Maryland and Rutgers just blows my mind and really dilutes the characteristics/personality of that conference.
I couldn't agree more. I was surprised by these additions in part because I heard the B10 Commissioner say after Nebraska joined that the conference was set with 12, and was not looking to expand further. I don't think this is a good move for the conference.
post #476 of 861
The Pac-"12" just doesn't look right with Utah and Colorado in there, either. Especially since Colorado sucks.
post #477 of 861
Curious what people would have as their top six teams (five is too easy)?

I'll start...

1) Alabama -- three games on a neutral site with my (never-to-be-conceived) kids' (never-to-be-created) college fund I'll choose the Tide over any team.
2) Oregon -- one kick from a good team is all that keeps them out of the NC.
3) Ohio State -- might even make them a co-number two. They've played really well probably because they have nothing to play for and are just having fun. In fact they and Oregon are tied.
4) UGA -- they've played well
5) Notre Dame -- they aren't impressive. Somehow I've seen most of their games this year. Very very lucky time and time again. Look at the Orioles for what it means to be continually lucky.
6) Florida

FWIW, there is very little separation between 1-4, really.

Here's what is somewhat interesting about the latest round of realignment, or whatever is going on.

While the Big East is all but dead qua football conference, it was the first to go to what will probably be nationwide super-conferences (who would've thought they would be a forward-thinking football entity?) One of the pundits I was listening to (Gene Wojechowski) was saying he wouldn't be surprised to see more conferences like that now that all the AQs are well beyond their historical footprint.

Also, I had forgotten or hadn't realized that Maryland was the football powerhouse of the ACC for a long time.

GW also added to the GT joining Big East rumor and threw in Vandy's name to the mix as well. I have no idea why Vandy (or any school, really) would leave the SEC. That said, he wrote eight months ago that UMD and Rutgers would join the Big East and if there is one thing I've noticed about realignment, there is barely any time between rumors of switching conferences to the official announcement being made.

Now, we all know there is really only one program that matters in college football which every convo should ultimately discuss and it is the Panthers of Georgia State. Joining the Big East was kind of the unofficial hope of moving to FBS figuring the program would get its feet under itself and then they would want to get into the Atlanta media market. Well it looks like we'll just wallow with some of the worst academic schools in the country playing sub-par football for the longterm future and unlike the CAA the Sun Belt is not a good basketball conference so we're kinda screwed. (Side note: #2 top play on SportsCenter this morning was GSU's buzzer-beater victory of the powerhouse of Tennessee State icon_gu_b_slayer[1].gif)
post #478 of 861
Quote:
Originally Posted by edinatlanta View Post

Curious what people would have as their top six teams (five is too easy)?
I'll start...
1) Alabama -- three games on a neutral site with my (never-to-be-conceived) kids' (never-to-be-created) college fund I'll choose the Tide over any team.
2) Oregon -- one kick from a good team is all that keeps them out of the NC.
3) Ohio State -- might even make them a co-number two. They've played really well probably because they have nothing to play for and are just having fun. In fact they and Oregon are tied.
4) UGA -- they've played well
5) Notre Dame -- they aren't impressive. Somehow I've seen most of their games this year. Very very lucky time and time again. Look at the Orioles for what it means to be continually lucky.
6) Florida
FWIW, there is very little separation between 1-4, really.
Here's what is somewhat interesting about the latest round of realignment, or whatever is going on.
While the Big East is all but dead qua football conference, it was the first to go to what will probably be nationwide super-conferences (who would've thought they would be a forward-thinking football entity?) One of the pundits I was listening to (Gene Wojechowski) was saying he wouldn't be surprised to see more conferences like that now that all the AQs are well beyond their historical footprint.
Also, I had forgotten or hadn't realized that Maryland was the football powerhouse of the ACC for a long time.
GW also added to the GT joining Big East rumor and threw in Vandy's name to the mix as well. I have no idea why Vandy (or any school, really) would leave the SEC. That said, he wrote eight months ago that UMD and Rutgers would join the Big East and if there is one thing I've noticed about realignment, there is barely any time between rumors of switching conferences to the official announcement being made.
Now, we all know there is really only one program that matters in college football which every convo should ultimately discuss and it is the Panthers of Georgia State. Joining the Big East was kind of the unofficial hope of moving to FBS figuring the program would get its feet under itself and then they would want to get into the Atlanta media market. Well it looks like we'll just wallow with some of the worst academic schools in the country playing sub-par football for the longterm future and unlike the CAA the Sun Belt is not a good basketball conference so we're kinda screwed. (Side note: #2 top play on SportsCenter this morning was GSU's buzzer-beater victory of the powerhouse of Tennessee State icon_gu_b_slayer[1].gif)

1) Oregon (I hate to put them here, but I think a closer loss to a better team puts them ahead of Alabama)
2) Alabama
3) Florida
4) Notre Dame
5) Stanford - 2 plays away from being undefeated. Lost a close one at Washington (who is immensely better at home than away (if you happened to see the LSU game) and also has a much better QB now than in the Washington game.
6) K-State? UGA? LSU? Ohio State?

I haven't seen Ohio State play a whole game so I really have no idea how good they are. Ditto for K-State. UGA has a bad loss and two bad wins. LSU looks good but has two losses.
post #479 of 861
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by edinatlanta View Post

Thanks guys, the only reason I started up again is I was on vacay last week. Dunno if I'll stick around.
Other than this year, do you really think VT would be a bad addition? They have a delta of -2 from their pre-season to end-of-season ranking since 1989, which considering they've almost never left the top-25 since 1998 and spent a ton of time in the top-10 I'd say that's a phenomenal run (but Beamer Ball doesn't win bowls, so YMMV). I've lost my historic ranking trends app so not going to look for that.
They have basically a .333 win percentage against SEC schools since 1921, while UGA and UF both are around .600, that's their conference and have had greater runs than VT. Looking at SC, they are at .350 in that time period against SEC foes.
W/r/t Clemson, lord do they want to be an SEC school. They are kinda up and down though as a program.
Also, as much as it might pain FLMM to read this, why would FSU want to leave the ACC as long as it is an AQ (or whatever they will call it when the playoff start)? Perennially weak competition they will get to beat up to waltz into a bowl, they remain in an academically superior conference and still get a shit ton of money. If they had gone to the SEC, the 90s would probably not have happened for FSU.

I don't think VaTech would be bad, but I think FSU and Clemson fit better culturally. I know that concept is being chipped away with realignment, but I still think it has value. Also, like you said, Clemson is as close as you can get to the SEC without being a member.

I do agree that FSU has an enormous disincentive for leaving as long as the ACC is an AQ conference, but the ACC is falling apart. At some point, it's going to be looked at as vastly inferior to the SEC, Pac-12, and Bigs. At that point, being in the ACC will be a big enough detriment to FSU to force them elsewhere.
post #480 of 861
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedLantern View Post


I haven't seen Ohio State play a whole game so I really have no idea how good they are. Ditto for K-State. UGA has a bad loss and two bad wins. LSU looks good but has two losses.

Ohio State is massively overrated. They are undefeated because the Big10 is shit and they played a bunch of patsies for their OOC games. What's their best win? A Nebraska team that also feasted on the Big10?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Entertainment and Culture
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment and Culture › Official 2012 College Football Season Thread