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 10:24:53 GMT -5
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. [/quote]
Agreed that there are several places where one could reasonably start the modern era...as I said, nobody will ever agree on the date. That said, 1936 is the best place to start.
Hell, I guess like anything...just follow the money, which, I think, is what you are saying.
|
|
Full Season 2022 Douche Champion
|
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 10:33:06 GMT -5
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 before it was taken away for the next 10 years. Didn't change how the game was played, but it did (theoretically) put teams on an equal footing to claim national titles. It is the starting point of when all teams at least recognized the same poll. If it's strictly about changing how the game is played, that is a different argument. FTR, I don't have a particular issue with any of the dates people are proposing.
|
|
Full Season 2022 Douche Champion
|
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 10:38:20 GMT -5
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. Absolutely. Your research. Your rules.
Personally, I don't think this anything to do with 2-platoon football...I think you're using 1964 because that's when Gatorade was invented.
|
|
Full Season 2022 Douche Champion
|
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 18, 2015 10:39:38 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. Edit: The above answers kaz and bam too. Oh please...it is something you can hang your hat on that falls into the time period that the gators became half way relevant. You only WISH there was something you could pin it to that happened in 1991. You johnny come latelies are all alike... Again, just in case you missed it the first dozen or so times, IMHO, there is now, and there is history. On occasion, when someone wants to talk time frames, I mention 1951...the year I was born in Ohio that happened to coincide with Woody Hayes taking the reins at Ohio State. But even saying that, I don't know what the Buckeyes' record is since then, or include any of that in my siggie or anything. I like to keep things relatively simple, and don't care much for cherries.
|
|
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!
New member or someone from France that doesn't get football
|
Post by boxedlunch on Jun 18, 2015 10:42:16 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. The NCAA's modern era starts in 1937. It makes more sense than 36, which really wasn't that big of a deal until retroactively.
|
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
New member or someone from France that doesn't get football
|
Post by boxedlunch on Jun 18, 2015 10:47:19 GMT -5
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 before it was taken away for the next 10 years. Didn't change how the game was played, but it did (theoretically) put teams on an equal footing to claim national titles. It is the starting point of when all teams at least recognized the same poll. If it's strictly about changing how the game is played, that is a different argument. FTR, I don't have a particular issue with any of the dates people are proposing. All teams started recognizing Dickinson in 1926 the same as they recognized the AP 1936. Retroactively they look at it differently, but that's generally more attributable to lack of knowledge than historical perspective.
|
|
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 10:49:39 GMT -5
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. The NCAA's modern era starts in 1937. It makes more sense than 36, which really wasn't that big of a deal until retroactively. Fine by me.
|
|
Full Season 2022 Douche Champion
|
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 10:54:14 GMT -5
Didn't change how the game was played, but it did (theoretically) put teams on an equal footing to claim national titles. It is the starting point of when all teams at least recognized the same poll. If it's strictly about changing how the game is played, that is a different argument. FTR, I don't have a particular issue with any of the dates people are proposing. All teams started recognizing Dickinson in 1926 the same as they recognized the AP 1936. Retroactively they look at it differently, but that's generally more attributable to lack of knowledge than historical perspective. Your site uses 1936 when classifying "ranked" teams, doesn't it? With what in mind and what you said above, why not use 1926?
|
|
Full Season 2022 Douche Champion
|
Woah, this is a default personal text! Edit your profile to change this to what you like!
New member or someone from France that doesn't get football
|
Post by boxedlunch on Jun 18, 2015 11:02:25 GMT -5
All teams started recognizing Dickinson in 1926 the same as they recognized the AP 1936. Retroactively they look at it differently, but that's generally more attributable to lack of knowledge than historical perspective. Your site uses 1936 when classifying "ranked" teams, doesn't it? With what in mind and what you said above, why not use 1926? The site actually starts in 1926 with Dickinson, if you use that option. Team Record Vs Dickinson Ranked OpponentsDickinson doesn't get much play because the average college football fan remembers nothing important outside of the AP poll. For as long as they watched football, the AP poll was king, so they assume it was always that way. The national championship craze started with Dickinson. It was the first national "title" and it give out a trophy every year. Other rating systems quickly joined the party, as well as the AP poll which was just copying Dickinson. The AP gave out titles in years prior to 1936 as well. The AP poll was just following the trend. Since it became king and few remember the trend-setters, the general consensus incorrectly credits the AP poll as starting it.
|
|
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 11:07:25 GMT -5
Your site uses 1936 when classifying "ranked" teams, doesn't it? With what in mind and what you said above, why not use 1926? The site actually starts in 1926 with Dickinson, if you use that option. Team Record Vs Dickinson Ranked OpponentsDickinson doesn't get much play because the average college football fan remembers nothing important outside of the AP poll. For as long as they watched football, the AP poll was king, so they assume it was always that way. The national championship craze started with Dickinson. It was the first national "title" and it give out a trophy every year. Other rating systems quickly joined the party, as well as the AP poll which was just copying Dickinson. The AP gave out titles in years prior to 1936 as well. The AP poll was just following the trend. Since it became king and few remember the trend-setters, the general consensus incorrectly credits the AP poll as starting it. Got it. Thanks.
|
|
Full Season 2022 Douche Champion
|
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 11:51:00 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. Edit: The above answers kaz and bam too. Oh please...it is something you can hang your hat on that falls into the time period that the gators became half way relevant. You only WISH there was something you could pin it to that happened in 1991. You johnny come latelies are all alike... Again, just in case you missed it the first dozen or so times, IMHO, there is now, and there is history. On occasion, when someone wants to talk time frames, I mention 1951...the year I was born in Ohio that happened to coincide with Woody Hayes taking the reins at Ohio State. But even saying that, I don't know what the Buckeyes' record is since then, or include any of that in my siggie or anything. I like to keep things relatively simple, and don't care much for cherries. Dang, here I was thinking you were a 70+ year old fart. Mark has given me many mile posts closer to 1990 which would be my preference, but, sadly and per normal, I don't agree that his mile markers changed the way games are played on the field. Your opinion is noted, but don't expect anyone to agree with you.
|
|
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 12:03:36 GMT -5
Your site uses 1936 when classifying "ranked" teams, doesn't it? With what in mind and what you said above, why not use 1926? The site actually starts in 1926 with Dickinson, if you use that option. Team Record Vs Dickinson Ranked OpponentsDickinson doesn't get much play because the average college football fan remembers nothing important outside of the AP poll. For as long as they watched football, the AP poll was king, so they assume it was always that way. The national championship craze started with Dickinson. It was the first national "title" and it give out a trophy every year. Other rating systems quickly joined the party, as well as the AP poll which was just copying Dickinson. The AP gave out titles in years prior to 1936 as well. The AP poll was just following the trend. Since it became king and few remember the trend-setters, the general consensus incorrectly credits the AP poll as starting it. To use Dickinson, you'd first have to educate everyone on this board. Otherwise, no one is going to understand why you clicked to include Dickinson starting in 1926 along with using the AP in 1936 and the UPI (?) in 1950. The same question I asked Harry, how does having a poll(s) change the way the game was played on the field?
|
|
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 12:12:20 GMT -5
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. The NCAA's modern era starts in 1937. It makes more sense than 36, which really wasn't that big of a deal until retroactively. Can you post a link to the information that describes why the NCAA starts with 1937 as a starting point for their modern era?
|
|
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 12:15:14 GMT -5
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. have at it.
|
|
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 12:20:20 GMT -5
Oh please...it is something you can hang your hat on that falls into the time period that the gators became half way relevant. You only WISH there was something you could pin it to that happened in 1991. You johnny come latelies are all alike... Again, just in case you missed it the first dozen or so times, IMHO, there is now, and there is history. On occasion, when someone wants to talk time frames, I mention 1951...the year I was born in Ohio that happened to coincide with Woody Hayes taking the reins at Ohio State. But even saying that, I don't know what the Buckeyes' record is since then, or include any of that in my siggie or anything. I like to keep things relatively simple, and don't care much for cherries. Dang, here I was thinking you were a 70+ year old fart. Mark has given me many mile posts closer to 1990 which would be my preference, but, sadly and per normal, I don't agree that his mile markers changed the way games are played on the field. Your opinion is noted, but don't expect anyone to agree with you. i think the 85 scholarship limit starting in '92 makes sense. that would also play well into uf's numbers. ha. it also sounds more modern to me than lbj and barry goldwater and the beatles in '64.
|
|
mark scott tosu 81
|