fro daddy

And as far as 2001, that is the perfect example of the the one and only thing that can flaw the voting system. teams like tx, ne, nd, fsu and a few others who get the benifit of the doubt because of what they did years ago and not being judged on what they have done lately. Constantly starting the year ranked or ranked highly only to finish unranked or barely ranked at all. OR WORSE, being ranked ahead of teams that they should be behind based on their name alone

 

Which is a great reason why they should ban pre-season polls, and any poll before at least a week or two into conference play. I think that is the ONLY thing the BCS gets right - they hold off on their initial poll until we have something to base the poll on, not just hype.

 

And for the record, we didn't deserve to be in that 2001 game. But that's long, long ago.

You and I have agreed on this point for a while now, probably since the first offseason I was here. Pre polls and polls in the first weeks are just dumb, not to mention the do hinder a true ranking. waiting to week 7 or 8 would be ideal. and i didnt bring up 2001, so no need to rehash that one.

I think 8 will happen and probably sooner rather than later

Agreed, fro. I think once the $$ and the appeal of the four-team playoff becomes obvious to the power-that-be, that the next go-around even may be an 8-team playoff. And I really think that you'll probably see the four-four split. I would have said six-two originally, but I'll be surprised if the ACC or the Big East have the clout regardiing football at that time to make much of a push.

When we get to 8 take the big 4 of SEC, Big12, Pac12 & Big12 (Big 5 with ACC if Florida State and Clemson stay) Then take the 3 highest ranked teams left. Its not perfect and still leaves the possibility of a team getting screwed, but I doubt they go to 12 or more for a long time, if ever. And anyway there will always be a 9th or 11th or 13th team that doesnt get in.

I would also say, just IMHO, that there should be a cap on the ranking of a conference winner. Say for example if your conference winner is ranked outside of the top 8, then your auto bid is void.

maybe it will just take nebraska getting really good again then getting left out for a team that is not as good for sauders to change his mind. To each their own i guess. I just think you take the best teams, regardless of possible rematches. Why punish teams because there good. It just seems silly to me. Lets not reward the best teams, lets put these lesser teams in so that we dont have rematches.

 

But thats just me, i bet you probably think im crazy or wrong for thinking that way.

This may blow your mind, but I didn't think we deserved it in 2001, and was sure we'd get murdered.

 

You're placing more value on your opinion, than actual on the field results. CFB is largely played in a vacuum, and there's little overlap from conference to conference. The problem is, there is no way to quantifiably prove who the best teams are.

We want the same thing....we just want it done differently.

And as far as 2001, that is the perfect example of the the one and only thing that can flaw the voting system. teams like tx, ne, nd, fsu and a few others who get the benifit of the doubt because of what they did years ago and not being judged on what they have done lately. Constantly starting the year ranked or ranked highly only to finish unranked or barely ranked at all. OR WORSE, being ranked ahead of teams that they should not be ahead of, but are based on their name alone

Then why change the system at all? Obviously, you know who the best teams are. So, the voters must know who the best teams are as well, and can pick the best 2 teams. No reason for a playoff then.

Because a playoff is good for business that why....

And I never claimed to know it all, but there is clearly a reason why Delany is pushing this plan. And I fully believe he knows his teams would have been left out if the four best were taken. And I would say the voters do a pretty bang up job for the most part in the top 5 to 8. I guess the question to you is why do you feel the need to circumvent a system that uses 2 polls done by humans, a number of computer generated rankings & SOS to rank teams fairly TOO INSTEAD use a system that gives teams an auto bid not based on who they beat, or how hard their SOS is, but instead on how old and rich their conference is??

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: You make a 16-team playoff model, with all conference champs, and 5 best non-champs. Solves the problems, and realistically, you're not leaving anyone out that should even have a SNIFF of the title.

 

And yes, I know... not likely to happen in the foreseeable future. Next best: Move it to eight, put the four 'power' conference champs in, and the four next best. And yes, that means B1G, SEC, Pac 12, and the Big XII.

 

Again, not happening this time around. And so, at that point, the hybrid is, by default, the next best model that I think we can realistically hope for. Seal spots for the best couple or three champs, and leave a spot or two for the 'next best'. As Saunders said, you're leaving the system open for corruption, but the best we can do. I think the hybrid is what will win out eventually, because I think the parties will realize that no one is going to give fully on that issue. We'll see, though. Certainly Slive and the SEC seem to have had the most victories in the small battles lately.

I think 8 will happen and probably sooner rather than later

maybe it will just take nebraska getting really good again then getting left out for a team that is not as good for sauders to change his mind. To each their own i guess. I just think you take the best teams, regardless of possible rematches. Why punish teams because there good. It just seems silly to me. Lets not reward the best teams, lets put these lesser teams in so that we dont have rematches.

But thats just me, i bet you probably think im crazy or wrong for thinking that way.

There will never be a conference champs only model. That's a given. The "4 best teams" model reeks of bias and collusion.

 

What the B1G Ten has been proposing all along (SEC misinformation aside) is a hybrid model.

 

 

Pay attention, please ...

Delany favors a "hybrid model" with a "quality-control cap" for selections: where the best conference champions are "honored" but allowances are made for elite teams that haven't won their leagues and/or divisions, as well as top independents like Notre Dame.

 

Here's what Delany said May 15 in Chicago:

"I don't want to adopt a model that any way belittles the regular-season championship process, whether it entails or doesn't entail a [conference] championship game. I also don't want to create a structure that doesn't reward highly regarded teams, whether they're independents or whether they're non-champions from other conferences. ... What is the right balance between champions, who have won it on the field, teams that are highly regarded but haven't won a conference championship and independents who should have a fair opportunity to play their way in as well?"

 

The Big Ten's view is spelled out pretty clearly. Athletic directors in Chicago discussed a playoff model that would include the top three-rated conference champions -- as long as they met a certain rankings threshold -- and a wild-card spot.

 

 

Link

too bad for Delany that his conference champs would still be left out in this model each of the last 4 years....(atleast if you did it right)

Also you still researving positions for teams that are conference champs. And who or what determines the merits of a conference winner. The ranking of that conference winner? Or just based on the conference?

To me an undefeated team in a mid major conference that played 2 Majors and destroyed every team they played winning nearly every game by 30 or 40+ points is better than a major co-champ who has a loss and played 5 teams within their conference that had 3 or less conference wins. But who gets the call in Delany's model. Im sure his big dog big10 team, not the TCU team that beat his big dog in Delany's own bowl game. So who gets the shaft if that is what happenes in 2010? Well that would be #4 Stanford, who was 12-1. That is unless you forget about taking a big 3 or 4 conf. winners (which is what I fully beleive Delany is after) and you do the right thing and take Auburn (conf winner), Oregon (conf winner), TCU (conf. winner) & Stanford (wild card) and leave the big10 out.

So I would ask Delany, are we supposed to take the a higher ranked team out and put a lower ranked one in based on the bias of a major conference?

Let's just pick the best 2 SEC teams, have them play each other, and give the winner a MNC, and continue the circlejerk. That's what we do know, and it's why we had that crapfest of a "title game" this year.

 

There's a reason why the playoff system that people have been bitching about for a decade is finally coming around. It's because outside of Baton Rouge and Tuscaloosa, very few people thought the current system got it right last year. Even in the middle of SEC country (where I live) it was considered a sham.

Frankly, LSU & BAMA would have run **adult content** all over any other conference out there. Yes a rematch isnt as great as a game featuring two team that have yet to play. But there is no doubt in my mind those were the two best teams. OSU was good. Even sometimes very good. BUT not top 2 great. They just were not. They lost to ISU, who was lead by a first time starter. The same ISU who beat northern iowa by 1, Uconn by 4 & ku by 3. The same ISU that lost by 23 to 6th place texas, lost by 23 to baylor, 35 to missouri, 16 to aTm & 20 to OU.

And please for the love of god dont tell me that 85 kids 18-23 years old were just devistated by a woman bb coach and assistant that died. Yes the deaths were tragic, but lets be real here. How many of those boys even knew who those coaches were. Were not talking about fb coaches or MBB.

The playoff removes a lot of that, hence the point. Rewarding teams for being in a weak conference isn't exactly the answer either though. Why have rankings if it's just conference champions? It'll just be the big 10, big 12, PAC 12, and SEC every year. No repeats, but sounds kind of like exhibitions not playoff games.

I am with you on this one chris. And too me its not even close. The conferences that push this the hardest are just telling me they know they cant compete with the best and they know their champions are not as good as the 2nd or even 3rd place finishers in others. Frankly I feel like had this been brought up when NE was still in the big12 there is no question people would want the best teams in alone. Now as a part of the big10 i truely am surprised to see the number folks that are behind a conference champion only format. Maybe thats because in the big12 you could lose the big12 championship game and still be ranked just as high or higher than other conference winners. The big10 is all about just conference winners. Probably because over the last few year they would be shut out without it. But confence champs alone are the best team according to Delany...Lord knows everyone here thinks that the 96 Texas team that was 8-5 deserved to be in a final 4 championship playoff....

I can just see it now. For the first time in a while the big10 will have multiple top level dominant teams and a one loss 11-1 team will be left out for a 2 or 3 or 5 loss team who won a weak conference or had a once in a million game and Deleny will poop his pants in outrage. Take the best 4 that way you atleast know you got the best four teams.

And counter points to the"If you're not the best team in your conference, you're not the best team in the country"

1. It doest mean you not one of the 4 best teams in the country though.

2. Just because you won your conference as a 2 or 3 loss team doest mean you better than a number of other teams in better conference.

If you want your conference winner to be guarenteed a spot....QUIT HAVING 2 & 3 LOSS CONFERENCE CHAMPIONS!!! Quit playing low end schedules, quit lining up and playing rounds of pansy noncons if you know you have 2 of the worst BCS conference team in your conference as opponents.

comparing bama and boise teams last year to a bama team 3 years ago is definatly applicable here...

I will be able to get down for a few games this year. Pretty excited to see the new teams.

 

The move is not even official yet, but everything just feels different. I am sure you guys experianced the same thing last year. There is just a clear difference between the big12 and others. I will miss some of the old games, but I am really excited to see some of the new matchups.

Any team in particular? Say one in awrence-Lay ansas-Kay?

yeah, but to tell you the truth the game I have/will miss most is nebraska. I felt like over the last 7-8 or so years it had really started to became a good series. There was some hate, it was an important game for both teams and most importantly the series was evenly played. Some wins, some losses. you loved winning and hated losing.

ku is fun and all, but really not on the level of many other big12 football games. in the past 2 seasons i may be giving ku too much credit in saying they had 7000 fans total combined at the arrowhead game. they only care about mbb. when its the last fb game possibly ever for your biggest rival and the 2nd most played rivalry game in all of college football and like 2k ku fans even bother to show up...its just not as big as other games. NE fans obviously love FB and they love watching it. Being a part of games where fans show up & care is more fun

Chuck - Thats the way I think I will feel about it. I think the move has the real potential to do great things for Mizzou. But it will be strange not playing any of those old teams. I thought we would atleast have a little taste of the big12 in aTM. We are cross rivals set to play every year. But that lasted for a few months and they have now already switched it to arkansas before we even became official. So after this year it will be all new teams

I will be able to get down for a few games this year. Pretty excited to see the new teams.

 

The move is not even official yet, but everything just feels different. I am sure you guys experianced the same thing last year. There is just a clear difference between the big12 and others. I will miss some of the old games, but I am really excited to see some of the new matchups.

 

True, but there's a certain...unfamiliarity with the landscape that comes with changing conferences that can stick in one's craw. Don't be shocked if, at some point, you feel like a stranger in a strange land watching Mizzou battle SEC teams.

 

And don't take this as regret for our decision--I'm still 100% behind the move. But it still feels weird at times. A good weird, but weird nevertheless.

I believe it. It was weird enough last year with no Nebraska or Colorado for the first time in my life. Now this year its Georgia, Tenn, Florida, SC, Kentucky, Vandy & Alabama. obviously I grew up with the big8 teams, the big12 was around for nearly 1/2 my life. Its gonna be different but it should be fun.

I just thought about it, with the new games, new field, new broadcast teams and brand new uniforms and helmets, it might take me a minute to realize I am watching Mizzou and not someone else

I will be able to get down for a few games this year. Pretty excited to see the new teams.

The move is not even official yet, but everything just feels different. I am sure you guys experianced the same thing last year. There is just a clear difference between the big12 and others. I will miss some of the old games, but I am really excited to see some of the new matchups.

Nice upgrade. And a good thing, too, as the facilities compared to the rest of the SEC - well, let's just say that Missouri has catching up to do. And the recruits do notice. When Arkansas joined the SEC, they realized pretty quickly that they needed massive upgrades, particularly since they had no "mind share" or tradition in the SEC. They had to upgrade to pull in SEC-area recruits; they didn't have the history of Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Tennessee, Georgia, and on and on and on.

thats true. Being middle of the pack in the big12 in spending, revenue, facilities & staduim size is good enough for about 11 or 12th out of 14 in the SEC. The influx in money from the SEC & the increase in staduim revenue will help to reach middle again in income and spending. And the improvement plans that are in place, to improve every sports fields/staduims/areas will bring up the facilities to par. The fans have been really excited and I have heard that donations have gone up close to 50%. Now its really all just about the results. If they are able to perform well I think the university is in a really good spot.

Does Missouri have a money tree they aren't sharing with anyone?

 

Only them and 13 of their closest friends. Its called the $EC.

This... and walmart

Field is beautiful, stadium looks grungy, needs some pressure warshing.

agreed. That concrete looks pretty dingy

Thanks, is there an estimated completion date?

They are expected to announce the plans around the end of june. Its rumored to be 200 million worth of work over 3 years done in stages. From everything I have heard they have the majority of the money already raised by some of the larger boosters.

Whats the current seating capacity?

71,004. That is with roughly 7K in temp and GA hill seating. I believe there are a little over 64,000 perminant seats currently.

I am not sure if too many will care with all the conference changes and such, but I figured I would post this because so many of you have either visited or alteast seen it on TV for many many years.

The field (before and after)

Here are some of the drawlings for the staduim work.

These drawlings show a raised south end to equal both the existing East and West sides. New end zone luxury suites at the top of South end. It will hold new coaches offices also. Add 2 video boards to the south corners. Build a brick facade on the East side like the one on the current West side. Adding luxury suites to the east side, with a second deck on top of those. Squaring the North end. Includes moving the hill and rock 'M' inward towards the field and expanding the pavilion area at the entrance.

Also includes renovation of the existing pressbox and commons areas. And a gutting and redo of many inner workings within the staduim.

From what I have heard they are looking to bump seating capacity to the mid to high 70's. 75-78K is what has been talked about. Add in the GA-SRO tickets and any temp bleachers I have hard they are shooting for the low to mid 80s at capacity. There has been some talk about perminant seats in the north endzone, but I havent heard anything that makes is seem like that is something that would be done right away, if ever.

Anyway...just thought I would share for those who might be interested.

http://blogs.ajc.com/recruiting/2012/05/25/anthony-jennings-qb-releases-his-10-finalists/?cxntfid=blogs_recruiting

Marietta coach Scott Burton told the AJC. “He ended up with around 35 scholarship offers. He wanted to get it down to 10 to take a harder look at those schools, and then let the other ones move on with other quarterbacks they are recruiting.”

Here’s the 10 in alphabetical order:

• Alabama
  
• Arkansas
  
• LSU
  
• Mississippi State
  
• Missouri
  
• Nebraska
  
• Ole Miss
  
• Oregon
  
• South Florida
  
• Wisconsin
  

Jennings grew up a fan of UGA, where his father played college football. However, the Bulldogs already have a commitment at the QB position with Brice Ramsey of Camden County.

What’s next for Anthony? He will travel to LSU this weekend, and then make recruiting trips over the next 10 days to Wisconsin, Missouri and Oregon. Jennings will likely commit late this summer

pretty sure that kid is blind.....jerk