Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Godlike Member
|
Post by Buckeye Dale on Jun 17, 2015 21:40:58 GMT -5
I didn't see a Bama fan cherry picking dates...missed that one. But you're right, that would be hilarious. You responded to a Bama fan saying he was interested in seeing cheery picked stats. Sorry if I read to much into that. CB & I have gone back & forth a few times...I think he understood, or he woulda popped back at me worse than you did...
|
|
Never grow a wishbone where a backbone ought to be.
We can disagree without being disagreeable.
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Godlike Member
|
Post by cbisbig on Jun 18, 2015 5:56:23 GMT -5
I'm interested. Stats are fun Especially when you cherry pick 'em to get that little tingly feeling down your leg...when you ignore 80 years of history because your team sucked. We had a poster on the old boards who did that...once even picked a date in the middle of the season so his team could be #1 on his list. Cherry-pickers are funny like that. The "modern era" seems like a pretty good starting point for any cfb discussion
|
|
ROLL TIDE!
29 SEC Championships 18 National Championships
2015-16 Bowl Champion Douche 2020 Pandemic Bowl Champ
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Godlike Member
|
Post by cbisbig on Jun 18, 2015 6:01:00 GMT -5
I didn't see a Bama fan cherry picking dates...missed that one. But you're right, that would be hilarious. You responded to a Bama fan saying he was interested in seeing cheery picked stats. Sorry if I read to much into that. I simply said I was interested in stats, didn't say anything about cherry picked stats. And like I've just said, the modern era seems like a good starting point especially since most of us were alive at the beginning of that era.[/font]
|
|
ROLL TIDE!
29 SEC Championships 18 National Championships
2015-16 Bowl Champion Douche 2020 Pandemic Bowl Champ
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Solid Member
|
Post by kaz on Jun 18, 2015 8:32:34 GMT -5
Especially when you cherry pick 'em to get that little tingly feeling down your leg...when you ignore 80 years of history because your team sucked. We had a poster on the old boards who did that...once even picked a date in the middle of the season so his team could be #1 on his list. Cherry-pickers are funny like that. The "modern era" seems like a pretty good starting point for any cfb discussion The problem with the "modern era" is that there is no definitive point when the modern era started. 1964, because of the rules changes? So what? Everyone had to play by the same old rules before then, didn't they?
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Godlike Member
|
Post by bamorin on Jun 18, 2015 8:42:33 GMT -5
The "modern era" seems like a pretty good starting point for any cfb discussion The problem with the "modern era" is that there is no definitive point when the modern era started. 1964, because of the rules changes? So what? Everyone had to play by the same old rules before then, didn't they? excellent point. so how about second half of the 20th to now......starting 1951?
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2015 8:59:49 GMT -5
I'm interested. Stats are fun Especially when you cherry pick 'em to get that little tingly feeling down your leg...when you ignore 80 years of history because your team sucked. We had a poster on the old boards who did that...once even picked a date in the middle of the season so his team could be #1 on his list. Cherry-pickers are funny like that. You always say that it's cherry picking, but few agree with you. The game changed around that time to what we play today. Some say it was blacks and whites playing together or to arbitrarily start at 1950, but to me it started with two platoon football permanently played along unlimited substitution. I call it the modern era. It's an accurate view of success in the game that is played today. Aren't you cherry picking to use 1869 as a starting date for club 800? Not all programs started in the 1800s. There are programs in the Ivy League that had over 700 wins into the 80s before they stopped being D1A. Club 800 totally ignores their long term success. All it means today is those programs with 800+ wins played as D1A longer and had more long term success. It's a well deserved tribute to long term D1A success, but it doesn't address what those and other programs have done in the D1A game we play today. Edit: The above answers kaz and bam too.
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Solid Member
|
Post by mscott59 on Jun 18, 2015 9:18:17 GMT -5
Especially when you cherry pick 'em to get that little tingly feeling down your leg...when you ignore 80 years of history because your team sucked. We had a poster on the old boards who did that...once even picked a date in the middle of the season so his team could be #1 on his list. Cherry-pickers are funny like that. You always say that it's cherry picking, but few agree with you. The game changed around that time to what we play today. Some say it was blacks and whites playing together or to arbitrarily start at 1950, but to me it started with two platoon football permanently played along unlimited substitution. I call it the modern era. It's an accurate view of success in the game that is played today. Aren't you cherry picking to use 1869 as a starting date for club 800? Not all programs started in the 1800s. There are programs in the Ivy League that had over 700 wins into the 80s before they stopped being D1A. Club 800 totally ignores their long term success. All it means today is those programs with 800+ wins played as D1A longer and had more long term success. It's a well deserved tribute to long term D1A success, but it doesn't address what those and other programs have done in the D1A game we play today. it's ironic that you criticize for cherry picking dates, when your own signature cherry picks a date as to when uf became the 'flagship' of the sec. lol. all time wins is the easiest way to measure long term success, because it encompasses a simple measure of all the games a program has played/won. any other start date is arbitrary. integration would be messy since different parts of the country did it at different times in the 20th century. similar situation for when the substitution rule was changed; programs who had dominant starting line ups suddenly were at a disadvantage to teams who may not have been as talented but were deeper, at least til the end of the 60s when they had a chance to better stock rosters. so that's no fool proof date either... regardless of what you call it. bam picked '51, which certainly resonates w/osu backers. why not start when ou and uga led the anti-ncaa revenue revolt? the continuous rule changes thru the years, or '98 when the bcs began? you could argue that the exponential increase in money flowing thru cfb has had a much greater impact on the sport than substitution.
|
|
mark scott tosu 81
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Godlike Member
|
Post by oujour76 on Jun 18, 2015 9:21:05 GMT -5
Especially when you cherry pick 'em to get that little tingly feeling down your leg...when you ignore 80 years of history because your team sucked. We had a poster on the old boards who did that...once even picked a date in the middle of the season so his team could be #1 on his list. Cherry-pickers are funny like that. The "modern era" seems like a pretty good starting point for any cfb discussion Unless you're Ralphie.
|
|
Full Season 2022 Douche Champion
|
Go Bucks!
Now THIS here...is a member
|
Post by beuycek on Jun 18, 2015 9:32:58 GMT -5
Phone is acting weird this morning so I will try a different method...
Mark says: "you could argue that the exponential increase in money flowing thru cfb has had a much greater impact on the sport than substitution."
I hadn't ever thought of that angle but that is interesting. You could also point back to the introduction of regional sports networks and ultimately conference networks, too when you talk money.
Money drove the ability to recruit with more people in a wider area. It also drove programs to upgrade/expand their facilities and (gasp) the number of different uniforms a team wears. All huge factors in how today's programs are constructed and ultimately perform based on the players those things attract.
It is an interesting perspective for sure.
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2015 9:34:59 GMT -5
You always say that it's cherry picking, but few agree with you. The game changed around that time to what we play today. Some say it was blacks and whites playing together or to arbitrarily start at 1950, but to me it started with two platoon football permanently played along unlimited substitution. I call it the modern era. It's an accurate view of success in the game that is played today. Aren't you cherry picking to use 1869 as a starting date for club 800? Not all programs started in the 1800s. There are programs in the Ivy League that had over 700 wins into the 80s before they stopped being D1A. Club 800 totally ignores their long term success. All it means today is those programs with 800+ wins played as D1A longer and had more long term success. It's a well deserved tribute to long term D1A success, but it doesn't address what those and other programs have done in the D1A game we play today. it's ironic that you criticize for cherry picking dates, when your own signature cherry picks a date as to when uf became the 'flagship' of the sec. lol. all time wins is the easiest way to measure long term success, because it encompasses a simple measure of all the games a program has played/won. any other start date is arbitrary. integration would be messy since different parts of the country did it at different times in the 20th century. similar situation for when the substitution rule was changed; programs who had dominant starting line ups suddenly were at a disadvantage to teams who may not have been as talented but were deeper, at least til the end of the 60s when they had a chance to better stock rosters. so that's no fool proof date either... regardless of what you call it. bam picked '51, which certainly resonates w/osu backers. why not start when ou and uga led the anti-ncaa revenue revolt? the continuous rule changes thru the years, or '98 when the bcs began? you could argue that the exponential increase in money flowing thru cfb has had a much greater impact on the sport than substitution. I can feel your support for the exclusion of other ideas. However, it's just like your wrongheaded stance on bowls or playoffs to me. I'm glad this isn't a discussion on the post office. You'd be arguing for a return to the Pony Express days.
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Godlike Member
|
Post by oujour76 on Jun 18, 2015 9:45:26 GMT -5
Phone is acting weird this morning so I will try a different method... Mark says: "you could argue that the exponential increase in money flowing thru cfb has had a much greater impact on the sport than substitution."I hadn't ever thought of that angle but that is interesting. You could also point back to the introduction of regional sports networks and ultimately conference networks, too when you talk money. Money drove the ability to recruit with more people in a wider area. It also drove programs to upgrade/expand their facilities and (gasp) the number of different uniforms a team wears. All huge factors in how today's programs are constructed and ultimately perform based on the players those things attract. It is an interesting perspective for sure. Scholarship limits, too. IMO, there is clearly a difference in the "modern era" vs. the game in the late 19th and early 20th century. Kind of analogous to baseball...modern era vs. dead-ball era. There are any number of legitimate starting points...1936 with the "poll" era, 1946 with post WW2, 1964 with 2-platoon, etc. I suppose you could even go with the NCAA became the governing body in 1953. But, nobody will ever agree on just where the modern era began.
No matter what date is chosen, it is cherry picking of some sort. Looking at all-time records is all well and good, but let's be honest...this is not the same game as it was in 1890, etc.
Not to say all-time records don't count, but to say that a national title in 1900 or 1906 or whatever is the same as one today, or even in the last 80 years, simply isn't true.
For me, 1936 makes the most sense. But, that's just a personal opinion.
|
|
Full Season 2022 Douche Champion
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Solid Member
|
Post by mscott59 on Jun 18, 2015 9:46:46 GMT -5
it's ironic that you criticize for cherry picking dates, when your own signature cherry picks a date as to when uf became the 'flagship' of the sec. lol. all time wins is the easiest way to measure long term success, because it encompasses a simple measure of all the games a program has played/won. any other start date is arbitrary. integration would be messy since different parts of the country did it at different times in the 20th century. similar situation for when the substitution rule was changed; programs who had dominant starting line ups suddenly were at a disadvantage to teams who may not have been as talented but were deeper, at least til the end of the 60s when they had a chance to better stock rosters. so that's no fool proof date either... regardless of what you call it. bam picked '51, which certainly resonates w/osu backers. why not start when ou and uga led the anti-ncaa revenue revolt? the continuous rule changes thru the years, or '98 when the bcs began? you could argue that the exponential increase in money flowing thru cfb has had a much greater impact on the sport than substitution. I can feel your support for the exclusion of other ideas. However, it's just like your wrongheaded stance on bowls or playoffs to me. I'm glad this isn't a discussion on the post office. You'd be arguing for a return to the Pony Express days. re bowls vs playoffs, i said, consistently, that there would be a playoff when it was proven that it could make more money, enough money, for the non-elite schools to see they could still benefit from it, even though i said then, and still feel today, that the bowl system was a special part of cfb that i would miss, and that any playoff expansion would continue the demise of bowl relevance, attendance viewership, etc. once again, you shape you memory in order to support your rationalization. plus you can't handle criticism when someone has a different point of view from you. especially me. that's a 'you' problem. 1964 may have seemed like the beginning of the 'modern' era back in the 80s, but it's not today imho. it's what it is; another arbitrary date. football in 2015 is as different from 1964 as '64 was from the ww1 era. none of your insults nor fabrications will change that. doesn't mean you can't use '64 as a starting point for anything... feel free.. but it's not much different than using '51, '70, '84, '92 or '98.
|
|
mark scott tosu 81
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Solid Member
|
Post by mscott59 on Jun 18, 2015 9:56:17 GMT -5
Phone is acting weird this morning so I will try a different method... Mark says: "you could argue that the exponential increase in money flowing thru cfb has had a much greater impact on the sport than substitution."I hadn't ever thought of that angle but that is interesting. You could also point back to the introduction of regional sports networks and ultimately conference networks, too when you talk money. Money drove the ability to recruit with more people in a wider area. It also drove programs to upgrade/expand their facilities and (gasp) the number of different uniforms a team wears. All huge factors in how today's programs are constructed and ultimately perform based on the players those things attract. It is an interesting perspective for sure. Scholarship limits, too. IMO, there is clearly a difference in the "modern era" vs. the game in the late 19th and early 20th century. Kind of analogous to baseball...modern era vs. dead-ball era. There are any number of legitimate starting points...1936 with the "poll" era, 1946 with post WW2, 1964 with 2-platoon, etc. I suppose you could even go with the NCAA became the governing body in 1953. But, nobody will ever agree on just where the modern era began.
No matter what date is chosen, it is cherry picking of some sort. Looking at all-time records is all well and good, but let's be honest...this is not the same game as it was in 1890, etc.
Not to say all-time records don't count, but to say that a national title in 1900 or 1906 or whatever is the same as one today, or even in the last 80 years, simply isn't true.
For me, 1936 makes the most sense. But, that's just a personal opinion. there are certainly a number of mileposts at which to benchmark cfb. i'd argue '36 is more external as to how the sport was covered, vs et's choice of '64 for a rule change. the '84 ou/uga lawsuit changed the sport. the ncaa first reduced scholarships to 105 back in '73. you could certainly make a valid debate that when the ncaa finally settle on 85 schollies in 1992 that the latest 'modern' era of cfb began, forcing a wider distribution of talent across the country. '98/bcs started a new era. '14/cfb playoff started another one. if/when top programs have the ultimate autonomy over how they run/manage/police themselves, player compensation, etc., all will have incredible effects on the sport. and the money flow.
|
|
mark scott tosu 81
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2015 10:14:18 GMT -5
I can feel your support for the exclusion of other ideas. However, it's just like your wrongheaded stance on bowls or playoffs to me. I'm glad this isn't a discussion on the post office. You'd be arguing for a return to the Pony Express days. re bowls vs playoffs, i said, consistently, that there would be a playoff when it was proven that it could make more money, enough money, for the non-elite schools to see they could still benefit from it, even though i said then, and still feel today, that the bowl system was a special part of cfb that i would miss, and that any playoff expansion would continue the demise of bowl relevance, attendance viewership, etc. once again, you shape you memory in order to support your rationalization. plus you can't handle criticism when someone has a different point of view from you. especially me. that's a 'you' problem. 1964 may have seemed like the beginning of the 'modern' era back in the 80s, but it's not today imho. it's what it is; another arbitrary date. football in 2015 is as different from 1964 as '64 was from the ww1 era. none of your insults nor fabrications will change that. doesn't mean you can't use '64 as a starting point for anything... feel free.. but it's not much different than using '51, '70, '84, '92 or '98. My eyes tell me something different than what your eyes tell you. The game is different from around 1964 to today than anything that was played before. That's why I call it the modern era. Since I think 1964 is the best jumping off point of the modern era and I'm doing the research, that's what I'm using. Anybody that wants to defend and use a separate date, have at it. I tried to get a consensus in the past and it just isn't possible. However, most agree there is a modern era that is different from the past.
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2015 10:23:23 GMT -5
Phone is acting weird this morning so I will try a different method... Mark says: "you could argue that the exponential increase in money flowing thru cfb has had a much greater impact on the sport than substitution."I hadn't ever thought of that angle but that is interesting. You could also point back to the introduction of regional sports networks and ultimately conference networks, too when you talk money. Money drove the ability to recruit with more people in a wider area. It also drove programs to upgrade/expand their facilities and (gasp) the number of different uniforms a team wears. All huge factors in how today's programs are constructed and ultimately perform based on the players those things attract. It is an interesting perspective for sure. Scholarship limits, too. IMO, there is clearly a difference in the "modern era" vs. the game in the late 19th and early 20th century. Kind of analogous to baseball...modern era vs. dead-ball era. There are any number of legitimate starting points...1936 with the "poll" era, 1946 with post WW2, 1964 with 2-platoon, etc. I suppose you could even go with the NCAA became the governing body in 1953. But, nobody will ever agree on just where the modern era began.
No matter what date is chosen, it is cherry picking of some sort. Looking at all-time records is all well and good, but let's be honest...this is not the same game as it was in 1890, etc.
Not to say all-time records don't count, but to say that a national title in 1900 or 1906 or whatever is the same as one today, or even in the last 80 years, simply isn't true.
For me, 1936 makes the most sense. But, that's just a personal opinion. Harry, how does having a poll in 1936 change how the games were played? The other date that does make sense to me is 1950 when two platoon football was allowed for 5 years in the late 40s into the early 50's, 1948-1952, before it was taken away in 1953 and for the next 11 years. Edit: Put in exact two platoon dates.
|
|