From: tonyf@rm1.interlan.com (Tony Fernandez)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.college
Subject: Re: Some comments
Date: 11 Nov 92 23:52:59 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Racal-Milgo, Sunrise, Florida

In article <1992Nov10.040411.22578@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, sager@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mike.r.sager) writes:
>In article <BxH6EB.EwC@encore.com>, jfrederi@encore.com (Justin Frederich) writes:
>
>If Miami beats Alabama, then they deserve to be ranked ahead of Alabama.  It
>doesn't mean (to me, at least) that they deserve to be the MNC.  Because they
>barely beat both Arizona and Florida St. in Miami doesn't convince me that
>they're better than these two teams.  And just because Washington lost in
>Arizona, I'm not convinced that Miami is better than Washington.  What would
>a playoff prove?  How about, who the best team is in head-to-head matchups
>at a neutral site.  It works quite well in college basketball.
>

But you will never know how really is better unless you played a ridiculously
long series of games in a neutral field.  You have to base it on how well
a team performed.  I personally believe that FSU is better than Alabama and
Texas A&M but I wouldn't vote FSU #1 over an undefeated Alabama simply
because they lost a game.

>I agree.  What Miami did was very impressive and they just might be the
>best team.  I just think a few other teams should be given some consideration
>based on what they've done this year.  Miami may have overlooked Arizona,
>but it's also possible Arizona is even better now than when they played
>Miami.  As you said, they just tied Oregon St. the week before they played
>Miami.  Did they suddenly become a great team in one week or could it be
>that they've improved a little more each week since then.

Well, Miami has also improved from the start of the season.  They are 
getting more than 50 yards rushing per game now.  Torreta is connecting on
the long passes.  Washington has probably improved from the beginning of the
season, just like most teams do, although key injuries can cancel this
improvement.

I do agree that other teams deserve and are getting some consideration.  
If not, why not just give the trophies to Miami and don't bother with 
the rest of the season.  You probably don't like that Miami is almost a
unanimous #1.  I am a bit surprised by this, I would have expected a
few more #1's for Alabama.  

>
>>  Finally, in todays poll Miami's opponents are ranked 5,9,10, and 22.
>>  Florida State's are ranked 1,11,14, and 25. (But they lost to 1).
>>  Arizona's are ranked 1,6,15,18, and 21. (But they lost to 1 and 21).
>>  Washington's are ranked 7,9,15,18, and 21. (With the loss to 9).
>
>This tells me they all have tough schedules which is one reason why I
>would consider them all for #1.  Since Florida St. barely lost to Miami
>in Miami, I consider these two teams pretty even.

Yes, but Miami won.  You can fault a team for winning by only three points
against a great team even if it is at home.  If you think FSU deserves to
be #1 because they lost at Miami by 3, then you must also think that Miami
deserves the 1988 MNC since their only loss was a 1 point loss to #1 Notre
Dame in South Bend. 

>Washington lost in
>Arizona but if the game was at Washington, I think Washington would have
>won.  At a neutral site, toss-up. As for Arizona, it depends on what being
>#1 means.  Should a team lose any chance of being #1 if they have poor
>showings early in the season?

If not, FSU probably deserves the 1988 and 1989 NC since they were probably
playing better than anyone at the end of each of those seasons, but had
early season losses both times.

>Or should being #1 mean you're the best
>team right now? If the latter, Arizona might fit that description.  And
>like Florida St., Arizona's loss to Miami was by a slim margin in Miami.

I think that a responsible pollster (an oxymoron) should take both how well
a team is playing at the end of the season and how well did the team perform
all year long.  This is why late season losses hurt more than early ones.

>
>I realize someone has to be the home team, but in the regular season only.
>I'd like to see a playoff with either four or eight teams at neutral sites.
>That would give us a real champion rather than having this determined by
>a silly vote.  That's the way it's done everywhere else.
>

I would love to see a playoff system.  Pick the best 8 teams, seed them and
have the seven major bowls rotate in hosting the different games.  The other
10 or so bowls are always non-factors so they wouldn't be affected.  
Eliminate the preseason games, the SEC championship and the extra game
WAC teams seem to play.  That way, only two teams play 14 games (one more
than what several teams play each year) and two more play 13 games.
I hardly think that would take away so much study time from the players.
If they are really concerned about this, reduce the number of practice hours, 
move the start of fall practice back or reduce the spring practices.
This can be accomplished without a net loss of study time for the student-
athletes.

If the bowl system is so great, why don't they replace the basketball
tournament with a bowl (arena) games?  

>Mike Sager

-- 

Tony L. Fernandez

Racal-Datacom, Network Management         Phone: (305) 846-6553
1601 N. Harrison Parkway                  INET : tonyf@sun1.interlan.com
Sunrise, FL 33323-2899                    

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             1993 Florida Marlins Opening Day Countdown:  152 days             
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------