I don't know how these rankings are made (I didn't find and read the article) but seeing the rankings for UCLA and UCSD I find the overall rankings somewhat questionable. Granted, when I was looking at undergrad admissions I preferred UC SD over UC LA, but I'm a Northern California boy and UCLA was too superficial (as in they care alot about how you look and where you go out).
I don't mind that Cal is ranked #2, but I doubt these rankings are agreed upon by all the intellectuals out there.
Damn I hate posting bad links, but that is exactly it.
That is the ranking I have seen countless Cal fans use to bring up their "#1 public university in the world" ranking (which is strange, because the threads are about football).
There are a number of sources that consider us the #1 public university. Usually we're not ranked #2 overall but slightly lower, however in those cases its only private schools who are above us.
If these rankings were the ones primarily used, I wouldn't say we're the #1 public university but rather the #2 university in the world, behind Harvard.
Granting that we just got cable here in Iowa, it seems to me that the BCS shouldn't be reformed, adjusted or corrected so much as it should be taken out back and shot. Instead of being the nifty, transparent utility the game promised, it's fidgety and arbitrary and draws way too much attention to itself.
The core problem is that none of the people involved really want a clear national ranking. So fine, drop the pretense. Go back to a bowl system, and let people talk smack about which was the best team of 2004 (or, more frequently, which team was better). They're doing it anyway, as this thread evinces. At least, without this flimsy pretense, the smack talk would be related to coaching, talent and strategy instead of secret votes fed to into a machine whose criteria change every year for conflicting political reasons.
But then, since I'm merely an occasional follower of a pretty decent team, I can afford detachment.
Granting that we just got cable here in Iowa, it seems to me that the BCS shouldn't be reformed, adjusted or corrected so much as it should be taken out back and shot. Instead of being the nifty, transparent utility the game promised, it's fidgety and arbitrary and draws way too much attention to itself.
The core problem is that none of the people involved really want a clear national ranking. So fine, drop the pretense. Go back to a bowl system, and let people talk smack about which was the best team of 2004 (or, more frequently, which team was better). They're doing it anyway, as this thread evinces. At least, without this flimsy pretense, the smack talk would be related to coaching, talent and strategy instead of secret votes fed to into a machine whose criteria change every year for conflicting political reasons.
But then, since I'm merely an occasional follower of a pretty decent team, I can afford detachment.
the key problem is its impossible for it work if conference champs get an automatic bid. It's also nearly impossible to claim a true national champ without having SOME sort of playoff bracket.
Bowl traditions will always be a large stick in the mud (as will university presidents wanting to keep the cash of all the regular season home games but not allowing more than 14 games per season).
The "if groverat were god" traditional bowl system:
- No corporate bowls in the playoff system.
- At Large #1 and #2 would be the top-ranked teams without bowl tie-ins.
- Notre Dame can join the Big East or Big-10 if they want an automatic bid.
Retroactively applied to this year we would have a Cal v. Texas Fiesta Bowl. (Followed by an OU/UT semi-final rematch )
The major problem I see with my dream system there is that you could end up with #1 v. #2 in the first round, so we'd have to decide if bowl tradition was more important than making sure normal ranking layout is applied.
Let the AP/Coaches shake out the subsequent rankings so we can still bitch about every ranking spot except #1 and #2.
the key problem is its impossible for it work if conference champs get an automatic bid. It's also nearly impossible to claim a true national champ without having SOME sort of playoff bracket.
and just when i thought i had you pegged, you start making sense again. to this i agree.
the key problem is its impossible for it work if conference champs get an automatic bid.
I do like groverat's construction somewhat. I'm content to have bowls be spectacles ruled by tradition instead of an ersatz playoff, simply because they make good spectacle and they're worthless as playoffs.
Quote:
It's also nearly impossible to claim a true national champ without having SOME sort of playoff bracket.
And I was wondering if that wasn't actually better, or at least more manageable. Let the teams play, have the conference champs (and some wildcards, just to make things interesting) play the bowls, and leave the whole "We're #1" silliness to the fans.
Because what the BCS is proving, dramatically, is that there is no formula for determining the champ that doesn't rub someone the wrong way. They'll be tweaking that silly thing until the sun goes red. So just admit that it doesn't work, throw it out, and go back to the bowls, and ambiguity. In the final analysis, that's what people seem to want anyway—the ranking system has been subordinated to them both every single time.
Grooverat's is the only way that i could possibly see the conferences buying off on, although i'd prefer a bracketed system based on some sort of final rankings. they ( conferences) are not going to allow the guaranteed dollars generated by the current system to go away. personally, i could give a shit about the tradition aspect of the bowl match-ups if it means a better game.
Whoa! Better eat my own words. Funny that Tyrone is actually going to UW.
Hey hmurchison, what are your thoughts?
I think Tyrone may work out. He does have Pac-10 experience from Stanfurd. As a bonus, for a little while at least, it'll be a given that you can win the UW-Stanfurd game.
It looks like Tyrone tends to have a bumpy start, but once he's firing on all cylinders I'd expect him to have a decent record. We'll see what next year brings, but either way, congratulations on finding a coach.
Because what the BCS is proving, dramatically, is that there is no formula for determining the champ that doesn't rub someone the wrong way. They'll be tweaking that silly thing until the sun goes red. So just admit that it doesn't work, throw it out, and go back to the bowls, and ambiguity. In the final analysis, that's what people seem to want anyway—the ranking system has been subordinated to them both every single time.
I think there is simply too much money in the BCS to drop it now.
Comments
You aren't really familiar with life at the top of the academic heap
UT-Austin is a terrible school, I'm surprised I know what this blinking computer machine is used for.
Did you torture animals as a child?
Originally posted by groverat
applenut:
UT-Austin is a terrible school, I'm surprised I know what this blinking computer machine is used for.
Did you torture animals as a child?
Is that miniature image of nothing suppose to tell me something about the academics at your school? If so its worse than I thought.
And no, I love animals, thank you very much.
Full Size Image
Reading it you'll see:
#1 - Harvard
#2 - UC Berkeley
#3 - MIT
#4 - Cal Tech
#5 - Oxford
#6 - Cambridge
#7 - Stanfurd
#8 - Yale
#9 - Princeton
...
#15 - Univ. of Texas, Austin
...
# 24 - UC San Diego
...
# 26 - UC Los Angeles
...
I don't know how these rankings are made (I didn't find and read the article) but seeing the rankings for UCLA and UCSD I find the overall rankings somewhat questionable. Granted, when I was looking at undergrad admissions I preferred UC SD over UC LA, but I'm a Northern California boy and UCLA was too superficial (as in they care alot about how you look and where you go out).
I don't mind that Cal is ranked #2, but I doubt these rankings are agreed upon by all the intellectuals out there.
That is the ranking I have seen countless Cal fans use to bring up their "#1 public university in the world" ranking (which is strange, because the threads are about football).
If these rankings were the ones primarily used, I wouldn't say we're the #1 public university but rather the #2 university in the world, behind Harvard.
The core problem is that none of the people involved really want a clear national ranking. So fine, drop the pretense. Go back to a bowl system, and let people talk smack about which was the best team of 2004 (or, more frequently, which team was better). They're doing it anyway, as this thread evinces. At least, without this flimsy pretense, the smack talk would be related to coaching, talent and strategy instead of secret votes fed to into a machine whose criteria change every year for conflicting political reasons.
But then, since I'm merely an occasional follower of a pretty decent team, I can afford detachment.
Originally posted by Amorph
Granting that we just got cable here in Iowa, it seems to me that the BCS shouldn't be reformed, adjusted or corrected so much as it should be taken out back and shot. Instead of being the nifty, transparent utility the game promised, it's fidgety and arbitrary and draws way too much attention to itself.
The core problem is that none of the people involved really want a clear national ranking. So fine, drop the pretense. Go back to a bowl system, and let people talk smack about which was the best team of 2004 (or, more frequently, which team was better). They're doing it anyway, as this thread evinces. At least, without this flimsy pretense, the smack talk would be related to coaching, talent and strategy instead of secret votes fed to into a machine whose criteria change every year for conflicting political reasons.
But then, since I'm merely an occasional follower of a pretty decent team, I can afford detachment.
the key problem is its impossible for it work if conference champs get an automatic bid. It's also nearly impossible to claim a true national champ without having SOME sort of playoff bracket.
The "if groverat were god" traditional bowl system:
- No corporate bowls in the playoff system.
- At Large #1 and #2 would be the top-ranked teams without bowl tie-ins.
- Notre Dame can join the Big East or Big-10 if they want an automatic bid.
Retroactively applied to this year we would have a Cal v. Texas Fiesta Bowl.
The major problem I see with my dream system there is that you could end up with #1 v. #2 in the first round, so we'd have to decide if bowl tradition was more important than making sure normal ranking layout is applied.
Let the AP/Coaches shake out the subsequent rankings so we can still bitch about every ranking spot except #1 and #2.
Originally posted by applenut
not really. since what i do is an act and what the fool from texas is doing is real.
there is a difference. and yet you can't see it.
that's the funny part.
the only acting i see is you acting like a child. are you ready to act like an adult now, or is that too much to ask?
Originally posted by applenut
the key problem is its impossible for it work if conference champs get an automatic bid. It's also nearly impossible to claim a true national champ without having SOME sort of playoff bracket.
and just when i thought i had you pegged, you start making sense again. to this i agree.
Originally posted by running with scissors
the only acting i see is you acting like a child. are you ready to act like an adult now, or is that too much to ask?
keep biting. way to take a thread off topic yet again.
go ahead. respond to it. you're impressing no one but yourself.
Originally posted by applenut
keep biting. way to take a thread off topic yet again.
go ahead. respond to it. you're impressing no one but yourself.
and your still acting the dick. how's that? i can play this as long as you can.
i can play this as long as you can.
No, you cannot.
Originally posted by groverat
No, you cannot.
yeah, you're probably right.
never mind, you win.
Originally posted by applenut
the key problem is its impossible for it work if conference champs get an automatic bid.
I do like groverat's construction somewhat. I'm content to have bowls be spectacles ruled by tradition instead of an ersatz playoff, simply because they make good spectacle and they're worthless as playoffs.
It's also nearly impossible to claim a true national champ without having SOME sort of playoff bracket.
And I was wondering if that wasn't actually better, or at least more manageable. Let the teams play, have the conference champs (and some wildcards, just to make things interesting) play the bowls, and leave the whole "We're #1" silliness to the fans.
Because what the BCS is proving, dramatically, is that there is no formula for determining the champ that doesn't rub someone the wrong way. They'll be tweaking that silly thing until the sun goes red. So just admit that it doesn't work, throw it out, and go back to the bowls, and ambiguity. In the final analysis, that's what people seem to want anyway—the ranking system has been subordinated to them both every single time.
Originally posted by Xool
Think Tyrone wants the job?
No? Me neither.
Whoa! Better eat my own words. Funny that Tyrone is actually going to UW.
Hey hmurchison, what are your thoughts?
I think Tyrone may work out. He does have Pac-10 experience from Stanfurd. As a bonus, for a little while at least, it'll be a given that you can win the UW-Stanfurd game.
It looks like Tyrone tends to have a bumpy start, but once he's firing on all cylinders I'd expect him to have a decent record. We'll see what next year brings, but either way, congratulations on finding a coach.
Originally posted by Amorph
Because what the BCS is proving, dramatically, is that there is no formula for determining the champ that doesn't rub someone the wrong way. They'll be tweaking that silly thing until the sun goes red. So just admit that it doesn't work, throw it out, and go back to the bowls, and ambiguity. In the final analysis, that's what people seem to want anyway—the ranking system has been subordinated to them both every single time.
I think there is simply too much money in the BCS to drop it now.
I like the poll at the bottom.
Originally posted by groverat
Cal's official athletics website.
I like the poll at the bottom.
Um, I like it too.