I wonder who was more thrilled to have his picture taken with the other.
Somewhere, Mike Leach isn’t staying thirsty. (h/t reader Seth Miller)
One of the staples in our spirited BCS/playoffs debate here at GTP is the frequent counter I get to my argument that college basketball is illustrative of how an oversized postseason tends to have a diminishing effect on a sport’s regular season that it isn’t a relevant comparison to D-1 college football because… well, because basketball is different.
Yet that never seems to slow down some of the very same folks from making the every-other-sport-has-playoffs-why-not-college football pitch. Like this one:
… It’s clear that the claim that college football has the “most compelling regular season” is simply a sleight of hand to cover up that college football’s post-season is not only problematic and controversial, it’s not even that compelling. That is, unless virtually every other sports league (and the NCAA itself with its Football Championship Subdivision) has it wrong.
Sadly, that’s only the fourth or fifth dumbest thing in that piece. The topper is this classic case of begging the question:
… even if we grant that the college football regular season is more compelling than other regular seasons, what if the cost of saving it is a less compelling post-season? Does the NCAA really think that one national championship game and a few marquis bowl games would get better ratings and be more compelling than a series of playoff games each one becoming increasingly more significant. A 16-team playoff would give college football fans a reason to watch at least 15 meaningful postseason games…
You know, it’s tough to argue with impeccable logic like that (although the NCAA has nothing to do with the BCS).
(h/t – who else? – PlayoffPAC)
When it comes to the NCAA enforcement folks, I tend to fall into the camp that views them as sometimes overwhelmed, sometimes incompetent people who inconsistently apply a set of rules that have grown as complicated as the Internal Revenue Code, and not, say, a bunch of evil bastards who ruthlessly pursue certain schools unfairly (an Alabama fan, in other words).
But I’ve got to say that if this rumor has legs, I may think about changing sides.
… This morning, someone (someone I trust) called me to share the same rumor that I then saw in a lot of different places: That those five players would serve two-game suspensions, in the USM and Furman games.
I can say first that I have NOT confirmed that. I’ve asked around, but no one credible is biting on that one. (See: My first point? Or maybe it’s just not accurate?)
Burning question: How would the players get to play in the Georgia game? That concept seems idealistic, to me. If it was negotiated by the university, to have the opener be mandatory and then get to pick the second game, give that person a raise. It’s plausible, I guess. But … it’s a stretch.
If it is true, I’d be somewhat outraged if I were a Georgia fan. That’s some flexible justice. Which is what makes me doubt it, considering it’s coming from the NCAA.
Somewhat outraged? No, that’s how I’d feel if Spurrier were to impose internal discipline on a selected basis. If the NCAA became involved in picking sides like that, I think I’d be feeling something more akin to a five-alarm, where’s-my-damned-shotgun outrage – especially considering how they’ve left Georgia twisting in the wind with regard to A.J. Green.
I doubt this is true, but I’ll sure be paying attention tonight to the pre-game talk.
From Mark Bradley’s game blog of last night’s Braves-Mets tilt:
The Ramblin’ Wreck and the Tech cheerleaders are driving around the field. Getting booed big-time.
Maybe they could get Paul Johnson to throw out the first pitch soon. Good times there, I’m sure.
Time to chow down, people.
You sure put us through the wringer this offseason, Mr. 2010 College Football Season, but I’m willing to let bygones be bygones.
Knock ‘em dead, kid.