[texsport]

Better watch out for the LSU Tigers! They may win out and pass a few teams. Remaining games are 'Ole Miss, Arkansas and probably Tennessee. Beating that trio would gain a lot of schedule points.

If you're in Louisiana, the best course from the tips, IMHO, is The Bluffs On Thompsons Creek. Maybe the best Palmer design anywhere, 150 slope and rarely crowded. Very distinctive and challenging holes. For those who don't like flat courses, it has quite a bit of roll to it.

http://www.thebluffs.com/layout03.htm

Unfortunately it's in St. Francisville,LA-about 100 miles from New Orleans.

Texsport

[Mike Hendren]

No one, outside of the bettors, the participants, the boosters who get trips to the warm weather sites, care about the lesser bowls.  

Mike,

Thanks for the opportunity to come clean:  I have never been to a bowl game involving the University of Tennessee.  For what it's worth I've never been to the Grand Ole Opry either and never met Johnny Cash.  

Shivas,

I'd skip a national championship game to play the par three course at ANGC!

Mike  

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

I feel the whole process of the BCS and the bowls is past stupid into ole while man mindset of damn the facts, things shall stay the SAME till there is not a breath left in my ole while man body.The regular season is all that you guy have said it is. The process after conference championships is just lost and without meaning with only the championship game and a very few good intersectional games are even worth watching on tv.

[Scott_Burroughs]

Shivas,

It has absolutely nothing to do with my school being in a playoff or being slighted by some poll or anything.  I've been pro-playoff before we became good.

It's just common sense and the fact that every other sport at every other level has one and people seem OK with those 99+%.  The other bowls will still be held and still only matter for those two teams, just like is is now.

I would vote for 4 or 8, probably 8, because I believe that many teams could run the table.

What's the big deal about playing a team twice in a season?   That happens already with the other divisions below 1-A in the playoffs and with the conference championsip games.  But it's far and few between and the chance of playing a team twice in a playoff format is more unlikely than in a conference championship game situation.   Happens all the time in basketball, it's called home-and-home and people think it's very fair.

[ChasLawler]

And for the really good teams, the teams for whom 9-3 is a crappy year like you and Miami, why would they even care about the regular season?  

They KNOW they're going to the playoffs in a 16 team format.  And if you use an 8 team format, then yeah, they might be concerned once they lose 2 games, but then they have the ability to lose two games!!  That's a big deal.  

whoah!!!

VT may have beaten Miami this year (or Brock Berlin may have single-handedly handed it to them), but they are not in the same league with the Miami's, OU's, FSU's, OSU's, etc...
9-3 is no a crappy year for the Hokies.
Michael Vick and one MNC appearance (loss may I add) does not make a football dynasty.

Sorry Scott - but I can't keep this one down.

I'm 100% in agreement with Shivas though. College football is all about the regular season.  A 4-team playoff would be the most I'd want to see.

[Scott_Burroughs]

And about all the bowls.  Only a select few actually sell out.  Many are played in front of 50% full crowds.  Shows how popular they are.

[Scott_Burroughs]

Rannulph,

I don't disagree with your VT statement (other than the Berlin statement, but you can say that about MANY games where one person commits several mistakes - that's why they count and why we were the better team that night.  You need a full team, like a Ken Dorsey-type QB to be really good).


But why does it matter so much WHEN you lose in the regular season?  If you lose early in the season, usually to a WORSE team, it gives you a much LARGER chance of being higher in the polls late in the season.

And as I said before, without the regular season counting volumes, you can't even MAKE the playoffs!  Playoffs absolutely do not negate the importance of the regular season!

[Keith Williams]

Texsport,

As much as it pains me to face the reality, LSU won't be facing UT any time soon.  It almost looks inevitable that it will be the dawgs in the dome come December; and when that happens I will be cheering for LSU!

Keith.

[ChasLawler]

But why does it matter so much WHEN you lose in the regular season?  If you lose early in the season, usually to a WORSE team, it gives you a much LARGER chance of being higher in the polls late in the season.

And as I said before, without the regular season counting volumes, you can't even MAKE the playoffs!  Playoffs absolutely do not negate the importance of the regular season!

I agree, in that it is a shame if OU loses in the Big 12 Championship game, they will, in all likelihood, be ranked beneath USC. That is something that has bothered me for some time as well.
But I don't like the idea of an OU type team being able to lose 2 games and still making it into an 8-team playoff.

A four-team playoff would be ideal, with some slight tinkering to the BCS standings formula (to call a loss a loss - regardless of when it took place during the season, and to allow an undefeated TCU/BYU type team a chance to get in the playoff ahead of a potentially higher ranked 1-loss team). If you're #5 looking in, then that's just tough - you shouldn't have lost a game.

[Scott_Burroughs]

And again, let's say XYZU loses a HUGE game during the regular season.  It's over for them, and they drop in the polls and their MNC chance is shot

How can you say that when there will be only 1 or 2 undefeated teams this year and one of them won't be in the MNC?  If you lose once, you're STILL IN IT, even WITHOUT a playoff!  It has happened a couple of time already!  Losing in the regular season doesn't eliminate anybody in a top conference.  USC, OSU, and FSU have already lost and have a big chance to make the MNC game.  It is NOT final in the current system nor a playoff system.  Where's the difference?

[erichunter]

This may be the most reliable sports talk radio topic to stir a debate but here are my $0.02.  The challenge is to balance the traditions that make college football great and have a logical way to determine a national champion.  The biggest affront to the old system is the creation of the large conferences.  First the SEC, then Big 12, soon the ACC, and then maybe the Big 10 (if ND ever takes the plunge).  As much as I hate the Conference Championships they would be necessary if you want to even try a playoff scenario.  As for # of teams for the playoff: 4 is too few because you have 5 big time football conferences (Big 12, SEC, Big 10, Pac 10, ACC).  [The remnants of the Big East are not on the same level.]  You don't want a champion of one of the 5 not in the playoff and also it is too narrow a window for a BYU in '80 or TCU '03 to develop.  
So, now the question is 8 or 16.  IMHO, 16 is too many not because of the extra playoff game it would cause but rather if you leave 9-16 available for the lessor bowls then TV & sponsors could create enough interesting matchups where it would not totally devalue them.  So, 8 seems to be a good number.  
The champions of the major 5 are guaranteed in the playoff.  So now you fill 6-8; allowing a TCU if warranted, independent ND or whomever.  The process for picking the remaining spots (and seeding) should be done similar to the NCAA hoops process.  If the committee wants to use the BCS as a metric fine, similar to the RPI in hoops.  Using a committee to seed can be helpful in having 2 teams be matched in the playoffs that had played in the regular season.  I also would recommend no more than 2 teams from 1 conference be eligible for the playoff.
From there, I would play the 1st round on the campus of the higher seed.  As popular as college football is I don't think they could do 3 rounds of neutral site play.  Also, it is a reward for the top 4 teams.  Then you have 3 games left and can use the Sugar, Orange, Rose, etc and rotate them.

Other musts: play an 11 game schedule (no silly kickoff classics); committe must be made up of administrators from the C-USAs, Mountain Wests of the world in addition to SEC, Pac 10, etc; also the guaranteed 5 spots should be awarded to the top performing conferences on an annual basis using some type of formula (haven't nailed this part yet).

Final thought, this playoff would not diminish the regular season at all.  Since the BCS was created there have been very few teams go undefeated through the regular season.  It rarely happens....When UT or Tenn or OSU has lost this season it's not like the fans just said "oh well...no MNC for us this year."  I have never understood that logic.  People still care passionately about the team.  Also, it was mentioned that there are 15 good games this weekend, what??  OSU-UM, LSU-Ole Miss, then what?  That point was used to highlight the significance of the regular season.  The BCS has so isolated the landscape that the # of important games dwindle significantly each week.  Another myth is the losing early is somehow better than losing late.  Remember Nebraska getting the woodshed at CU a couple of years ago, then playing UM in the MNC?  Another beef is that only the highest ranked teams can recover from a loss.  These rankings come out so early in the season when no one knows anything.  IMHO OSU is rated higher than LSU now because they were ranked higher coming into the year.  

Oh well, done for now

[ChasLawler]

Eric - I like what you've said, but I'm not sure I agree that the champion from each conference should get an automatic bid into a playoff. Look at the ACC this year - does FSU deserve a spot in the top 8?

And Nebraska getting in to the MNC was a result of everything going wrong that could have possibly gone wrong. In general the later you lose, the more you're screwed.

I'm still trying to figure out what this has to do with golf architecture?

What's nice about the current system is that teams like Miami and OU know that the only way they can guarantee a spot in the MNC game is to go undefeated. Go to an 8 team play-off and the big boys can pretty much factor in 1-loss during the season, and know they'll still be in the playoff.

Someone's always going to get screwed in college football - like Shivas said, that's part of the fun - the quirk. With a four-team playoff - you can maintain the integrity of the regular season, while giving the top four teams a sense of closure.

[THuckaby2]

Shivas:

4 is the right number in the short term.

Then 8 becomes the right number later on, as people see how great this is.  8 won't dilute the importance of regular season games - it's still gonna be damn tough to get into that final 8 and the key is schools are going to want to make that final 8 BIG-TIME.  So if anything MORE is added to these rivalry games at the end for teams that have a chance, and for those that don't, what is lost?   Sure, some 2-loss teams might make it, but in general, the end games will still have HUGE ramification... Think about the Big 10 this year as an example... Yes Ohio State/Michigan loses some luster, but all the others GAIN importance as they might mean a chance to get in the 8.... Wash State/Wash ADDS importance, as WaSu must win to even have a chance to make the 8... Miss State/LSU becomes even huger for Miss State, as a chance at the 8 becomes real with a win..  Bottom line is a few games lose some luster, but only the VERY few where both teams are in the 8 anyway... and even in the case of Ohio State/Michigan - the only one this year where that might be the case - you don't think Michigan sweats out a loss kicking them out?

TH

[erichunter]

Shivas--

Rivalry weekend is always going to be big no matter the stakes.  There is natural contempt.  I don't see how a playoff dilutes the importance of the games you listed.  Those games matter even if both teams aren't over .500.  I totally understand they are important to those involved and they are fun to the unattached observer because of the passion but that passion doesn't go out the window because of a playoff system.  Take SC-UCLA, using the playoff system.  They have pretty much wrapped up a Pac 10 title but you can't tell me SC wouldn't still be foaming at the mouth to beat UCLA and vice versa.  And this would be the worst case scenario.

R Junah--I hate defending FSU but if you look at the strength of VT, UM bring to the ACC...then the Big 5 really have distanced themselves from the rest but like I mentioned if some formula was created to rate the conferences one could re-rank the 5 every few years to factor in cyclical changes that no one can predict.
Also, by placing an importance on the conf championship, hopefully this would free up top tier teams to play even more exciting non-conference schedules instead of LSU playing Western Illinois, OSU playing San Diego St, etc.  There are always going to be some cupcakes but hopefully encourage more UM-Oregon; intersectional type games...  

[Jackie Sherrill]

Sorry to tell you this Huck, but Mississippi State isn't anywhere close to any list of 8 regardless of the outcome of a game with LSU, unless that bracket is for the bottom 8...

we are the bulldogs, hear us yelp...

Coach (for just a little while longer, thank God)

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Shivas I do not think a playoff will ever steal the thunder from the rivalry games or even the regular season. The game with Ole Miss is big every year but bigger this year because of championship. I do not care if we knew we were in a playoff and could lose. THIS IS A LIFESTYLE GAME!!! game. Good versus evil. Those people are the bottom and always will be!!! When I was 6 years old some drunk redneck hit me with an empty Jack black bottle at 11:00 AM before an LSU/Ole Miss game in Jackson. The pharmsist in our neighborhood was a Reb, as was the chevy dealer and publisher of the newspaper. All were family friends and I grew up hating the ground they walked on and got teased from birth by them. A playoff does not ever change what makes college football life and death are such a part of american life, especially in the south.

[THuckaby2]

Sorry to tell you this Huck, but Mississippi State isn't anywhere close to any list of 8 regardless of the outcome of a game with LSU, unless that bracket is for the bottom 8...

we are the bulldogs, hear us yelp...

Coach (for just a little while longer, thank God)

Typing too quickly.  I meant Ole Miss.  Whoops!

BTW, I agree with Tiger... having lived through so many years of Cal-Stanford games where they had no chance for anything, and seeing how life and death those are to people in the Bay Area, I can't see that the existence of a top 8 playoff does anything but ADD to the luster of that game, if by some miracle they have a chance at making the 8.  If they don't, as they haven't for damn near eternity, then what difference does it make?

And that's the case for the vast majority of the rivalry games... for all games... the importance is heightened, not lessened.

TH

[Jackie Sherrill]

Huck,

Thats okay, considering this season, I'll take your mix-up as a compliment.

Coach

[Mike Benham]

4 is the right number in the short term.

Then 8 becomes the right number later on, as people see how great this is.  

4 or 8 doesn't really matter ... as long as you have a BCS type formula that takes into account numerous different polls that are all East Coast slanted, you will have debate over who is really in the top 4 or 8.  USC has been on National TV once this year so how many games have the "experts" seen of USC or any other team to make their picks each Sunday morning.  

And the coaches poll, do you think that bobby Bowden stays up late on Saturday night watching game tape of USC, TCU or SCU for that matter to make his picks on Sunday.  Heck, I don't think he is awake during most of their own games ...

And who is Jeff Sagrin and why does he get a vote equal to USA Today or the New York Times?  Does the NY Times even have a sports page?  

As long as the media and money are involved (and those hypocritical University Presidents who created the BCS), the rankings that determine the top 4 or 8 will always be slanted towards the big conferences.  That is why, except for basketball, all the other NCAA Championships, have a bracket selected by knowledgeable people and a true championship.

Go Broncos !

Mike

[THuckaby2]

Mike:

Even basketball isn't immune from this slant.  Talk to our friends up in Spokane about their seedings over the years... Basketball does tend to work better because you have a larger sample of games - but still, even the supposedly fool-proof RPI system is shrouded in secrecy by the championship committee, with the result that subjectivity is still involved, and thus the slant remains.

But re football, the bottom line is they need SOMETHING to determine the qualifiers, be it 2, 4, or 8, and the BCS system, while far from foolproof, does a decent enough job.  It does need tweaks, and consistently year by year gets such... Just be thankful it isn't based purely on just taking the champions of each of the power leagues plus Notre Dame.

Jeff Sagarin basically invented the computer power ratings of teams, btw - he's been doing this for many years - I have way more faith in his ratings than any of the others.  But methinks you knew that.  

TH

[THuckaby2]

If I'm a choir you are preaching to me re all of that, shivas.  I make the exact same complaint all the time... and damn I talk about this with people more than golf, at least this time of year!

TH

[Mike Benham]

Even basketball isn't immune from this slant.  Talk to our friends up in Spokane about their seedings over the years... Basketball does tend to work better because you have a larger sample of games - but still, even the supposedly fool-proof RPI system is shrouded in secrecy by the championship committee, with the result that subjectivity is still involved, and thus the slant remains.

But re football, the bottom line is they need SOMETHING to determine the qualifiers, be it 2, 4, or 8, and the BCS system, while far from foolproof, does a decent enough job.  It does need tweaks, and consistently year by year gets such... Just be thankful it isn't based purely on just taking the champions of each of the power leagues plus Notre Dame.

Jeff Sagarin basically invented the computer power ratings of teams, btw - he's been doing this for many years - I have way more faith in his ratings than any of the others.

Tom - Puhleeeze !!  (I always wanted to type that and now is as good a time as any ...)

Yes, Sagrin invented the computer power ratings on his Apple II but the various polls are a bunch of junk ... look at the New York Times ... Texas #3 with 2 losses, Florida #4, with 2 losses, LSU #11 ... I think they even have Santa Clara at #26 in Div 1 AA  

The BCS can work just as long as they take out the human elemnet of polls and open it up to all conferences.

Wait until Notre Dame joins the ACC, the Big East becomes defunct and Conf-USA wants to be part of the BCS.  Congress will get involved and then the fun starts ... and mean while, these college presidents worried about the BCS, are suppose to be educating America's yutes ...

Shivas - Pro Sports?  Let's use the NFL as an example ... everyone plays each other?  Come on ... 16 game schedule, play within your conference twice ... other games are based on where you finished the prior year ... and that is why the Cowboys are 7-3, the Chiefs 9-1 and the Bengals 5-5 ...

Back to more important things, want to dissect the 14th hole at the "new" Metropolitan Golf Links in Oakland?

14 From the tee - downwind


Short approach over "crud" to a two-tier green -


Reilly chipping (it kicks left ...)

[tck]

Joel,

I looked around and researched as many places as I could last year to find some good courses in the area for my brother's bachelor party in the Big Easy.  Unfortunately, the New Orleans area is definitely lacking in quantity and quality of courses.

We played English Turn and were not overly impressed - I can see why the Tour is building a TPC for their New Orleans stop.  The Turn is completely flat with a lot of artificial lakes as hazards and holes that blend together.  If the wind is blowing, it can be a stern test, but it is not very memorable.

That said, we had a blast during the rest of the bachelor party.  Also, we go there almost every year for Jazz Fest, so  I say enjoy the town, have fun, eat and drink a lot, and leave your clubs at home.

[THuckaby2]

Mike:

Slow down big fella.  All I said was that the BCS method of determing the best teams was acceptable.  I absolutely concur that not allowing all conferences into the bowl mix is ludicrous - it should be open to everyone.  But anyway, all I am talking about is the determination of rankings... where we go after that is patently stupid right now - I WANT A PLAYOFF!  And yes, all should be eligible for such, with the rating system sorting things out as to who is ranked 1-4, or 1-8.  That works out pretty darn well as they do it now... It's the next step from there that I object to currently.

In any case, the BCS rating system is also far from perfect, obviously, with the prime reason being that with 11-12 games, the sample is just too small for the computer ratings, and thus you have the variances.  Also, you need to remember that some ratings include margin of victory, some don't... so again you have variances.

The BCS takes all the computer ratings and averages them, throwing out the low.  They also then factor in the human polls, plus several other things including quality wins... Go read up on it if you haven't already.  Of course it isn't perfect, but it isn't BAD.  That's why they tweak it's methodology every year....

In hoops it works better because with a sample of app. 30 games, that's more data.  But still you have the slant there, for the reasons I stated.

Now re #14 at Metro, that's a damn fine hole, likely the best on the course.  But talk about a small sample of participants here who can discuss it based on playing...  

TH

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()