College Playoff

[Saw31]

Tat5. Sugar Bowl.

You gotta be torn Smoov. I get it, believe me. No way we win the Sugar Bowl without those guys, but then if I'm a Pig fan, I want to play the Buckeyes' best. Fucking all this off-field shit just sucks the fun outta my favorite sport...

 

[SmoovP]

You gotta be torn Smoov. I get it, believe me. No way we win the Sugar Bowl without those guys, but then if I'm a Pig fan, I want to play the Buckeyes' best. [censored]ing all this off-field [Mark May] just sucks the fun outta my favorite sport...

Yeah, I have consistently stated that I was in favor of them playing. There would have been no honor in winning without them on the field.

 

[SmoovP]

Really the Tat5 sold items that were theirs...they owned them plain and simple....no one just handed their parents money for selling them to a school....and time actually did transpire (at least more than a week) while the NCAA looked into it and suspended them....

Hold on a minute.

That "owned them plain and simple" argument gets thrown out a lot, but it's not that black and white.

They are given them as awards for various accomplishments, i.e., beating Michigan, winning MVP, etc., with the explicit understanding that selling them while still a student-athlete is against the rules.

You might disagree with that rule, but it is the rule.

And while there is just the tiniest sliver of plausible deniability that they knew that rule - they knew that rule.

And it's a good rule too.

I hate 'slippery slope' arguments, I really do, but the potential for abuse is just too great.

Because without that rule, Alabama would start handing out gold bullion stamped with the likeness of Bear Bryant for every little accomplishment they could come up with and let the players sell them to the highest bidder.

They'd be handing those gold coins out for tying their shoelaces. It would simply become a way to pay the players.

 

[Nutriaitch]

They'd be handing those gold coins out for tying their shoelaces.

Alabama players can't tie their own shoes.

 

[Gatorubet]

Seriously? You're painting the NCAA into a black and white set of absolutes, Ye who loves the gray?

Loving gray has nothing to do with being against punishing someone for breaking a rule because we might find out they did something wrong in the future.

I mean, you are saying stuff that is good enough for the court of public opinion - but we are talking rules here. There are no NCAA rules that make Cam ineligible to play for Auburn - at least for your stated reason that Cam's dad made Miss State an offer that was declined - so Auburn must have said yes. Good guess? Yep. Is it the type of proof that the NCAA can use to suspend Cam? Without more, no way. Not even close.

My point was they had proof he tried to cheat, conflicting and changing stories from the newtons, and a number of testimonies and side investigations implicating not only newton but the entire university. There was more than enough smoke to at least deliberate for a week.

Make up your mind. Are you mad they did not find him ineligible, or mad that they did not take a longer time to before they found him eligible?

If dillon Baxter doesn't get his eligibility restored until after one week/game goes by because he rode on a golf cart with a pseudo agent, they could certainly wait a week to decide that it is ok to actively shop your kid for violations as long as there is a laughable loophole, even if you accept the unbelievable caveat that he never sought similar monies from auburn.

There you go again. You say "even if you accept the unbelievable caveat that he never sought similar monies from auburn." That's not how it works. You are creating a presumption of guilt and then demanding proof of his innocence. You cannot assume that he sought similar monies from Auburn, you have to show he took similar monies from Auburn. The thing you have to know about loopholes is - to be valid they only have to exist. They don't have to be fair, be consistent, or be in the best interests of anything. They just have to exist, annoying as hell as that is to everyone. See tax loopholes that are unjust, unfair, insiderish and not in our best interests as a country. If there is a loophole in the law, you can drive your bus through it sideways and not worry about it. I mean, the rest of us can bitch, but that is hardly the loophole user's concern. They may honk and wave as they ride by into the setting sun, but that is all the response you will get.

 

[sepia5]

Michigan players can't tie their own shoes.

FIFY.

 

[cjmik_75]

Hold on a minute.

That "owned them plain and simple" argument gets thrown out a lot, but it's not that black and white.

They are given them as awards for various accomplishments, i.e., beating Michigan, winning MVP, etc., with the explicit understanding that selling them while still a student-athlete is against the rules.

You might disagree with that rule, but it is the rule.

And while there is just the tiniest sliver of plausible deniability that they knew that rule - they knew that rule.

And it's a good rule too.

I hate 'slippery slope' arguments, I really do, but the potential for abuse is just too great.

Because without that rule, Alabama would start handing out gold bullion stamped with the likeness of Bear Bryant for every little accomplishment they could come up with and let the players sell them to the highest bidder.

They'd be handing those gold coins out for tying their shoelaces. It would simply become a way to pay the players.

The difference between the tOSU players and Cam is real simple.

tOSU worked with the NCAA and the parties involved actually received punishment. Auburn/Cam didn't get dinged because they choose to lie through their fucking teeth and forced the NCAA to "find proof". When the NCAA can't find it they move on.

What this has to do with a playoff system in CFB is what I'm trying to figure out.

Not just Smoov's post but this wonderful thread is going in the wrong direction... We already have 3 or 4 others that pertain to: the eligibility of players, Tat5, sCam Newton, NCAA hypocrisy, suspensions, pay for play and all that shit.

 

[BUCKYLE]

The difference between the tOSU players and Cam is real simple.

tOSU worked with the NCAA and the parties involved actually received punishment. Auburn/Cam didn't get dinged because they choose to lie through their fucking teeth and forced the NCAA to "find proof". When the NCAA can't find it they move on.

What this has to do with a playoff system in CFB is what I'm trying to figure out.

Not just Smoov's post but this wonderful thread is going in the wrong direction... We already have 3 or 4 others that pertain to: the eligibility of players, Tat5, sCam Newton, NCAA hypocrisy, suspensions, pay for play and all that shit.

:topic:

 

[BB73]

We already have 3 or 4 others that pertain to: the eligibility of players, Tat5, sCam Newton, NCAA hypocrisy, suspensions, pay for play and all that shit.

It's an easy mistake - people just miss the 'L' in the second word of the title.

 

[Steve19]

This game has added much simplicity to my life. You see, I've always been a bit ambivalent about needing a national play-off in college football. Not anymore. When a team that barely makes .500 in its league and a mid-major are in the national championship game, it tells me a lot about the ability of a good but not great team to win on the day in the tournament format.

Butler or UConn with be the champion of the NCAA Tournament and that's a great accomplishment. But, count me among the people who do not consider the winner to be the national champion.

 

[Jake]

This game has added much simplicity to my life. You see, I've always been a bit ambivalent about needing a national play-off in college football. Not anymore. When a team that barely makes .500 in its league and a mid-major are in the national championship game, it tells me a lot about the ability of a good but not great team to win on the day in the tournament format.

Butler or UConn with be the champion of the NCAA Tournament and that's a great accomplishment. But, count me among the people who do not consider the winner to be the national champion.

I agree. When the team "everybody knows" is the best one doesn't win the tournament, it is time to get rid of the tournament. We should abolish playoffs in all sports for this very reason.

By the way, that discussion has been ongoing in another thread. Amazingly, it came back to life when the top seeded Buckeyes lost in the tournament. Quite the coincidence.

http://www.buckeyeplanet.com/forum/college-football/404-college-playoff-148.html#post1902338

 

[jwinslow]

I agree. When the team "everybody knows" is the best one doesn't win the tournament, it is time to get rid of the tournament. We should abolish playoffs in all sports for this very reason.

By the way, that discussion has been ongoing in another thread. Amazingly, it came back to life when the top seeded Buckeyes lost in the tournament. Quite the coincidence.

http://www.buckeyeplanet.com/forum/college-football/404-college-playoff-148.html#post1902338

Butler is the champion if they win, in this format. It just shows that it uses a system with its own flaws.

Syracuse won the big east tournament a few years back out of nowhere. They weren't the big east champions, they were just the winners of a small series.

Syracuse deserves kudos for beating all of those big east teams in the tournament back to back. I don't think that makes them a more worthy champion than if they had put the top-4 seeds together in a small bracket.

I'd argue a top-4 would be more useful barometer of the best team than an overly inclusive format like a conference tournament or the ridiculously accessible NCAA tournament.

 

[SloopyHangOn]

Maybe I'm going too philosophical here, but does anyone else ever think that the immediate and macroscopic nature of our society, something that has evolved over the last few decades, contributes to our desire to find "perfect" solutions to imperfect problems and inhibits us from being content with simply making the best of what we've got?

 

[MaxBuck]

Maybe I'm going too philosophical here, but does anyone else ever think that the immediate and macroscopic nature of our society, something that has evolved over the last few decades, contributes to our desire to find "perfect" solutions to imperfect problems and inhibits us from being content with simply making the best of what we've got?

Please note my signature, below.

 

[SmoovP]

Maybe I'm going too philosophical here, but does anyone else ever think that the immediate and macroscopic nature of our society, something that has evolved over the last few decades, contributes to our desire to find "perfect" solutions to imperfect problems and inhibits us from being content with simply making the best of what we've got?

Yes.

I often think this.