DeTard, your "experiences" did absolutely NOTHING to help your argument.
That sentiment really means that you did a poor job of reading and understanding my posts. Indeed, we already knew that because you blatantly misstated my opposing comments.
Nonetheless, my argument was that Shoalzie's proposal would be impractical given that it would extend the season by nearly a third thereby further infringing even moreso on these student-athletes time available for academic work...which is why they are there in the first place. My experiences with football players at all three levels informed me that DI players spent substantially more time meeting, training, practicing, travelling, and playing than their DII and DIII counterparts. Hence, my personal experience certainly did help my argument whether you choose to a) acknowledge that; or b) misstate my comments.
Your experiences weren't reflective of any sort of mass truth.
I didn't sell them that way in the first place.
You, MGO, took that ball and ran with it yourself. Nonetheless, your presumptions hold even less water.
This is interesting...rather than providing information that would contradict my impression of the time requirements for DI football players, you simply disregard it, calling it illogical. This despite the fact that you have nothing more than presumptions about the issue.
Please explain why your uninformed presumptions are more valid than informed experiences...
You tried to use your relationships with two or three individuals as a standard for all, which just isn't a plausible attempt.
This is the third and last time I will say this, MGO --
YOU took my comments and applied them universally. I did not. I maintained all along that I was basing my impression on my experiences.
Now, seeing that you have punted on the issue by failing to even attempt to bring contradictory evidence to the table, I can only presume that your only argument is that you simply refuse to believe what I posted. That's fine and all, but do not attempt to suggest then that my argument is illogical simply because you have failed to actually address or undermine it.
Then you tried to use your experiences as a student at D11 and D111 schools, which may have been somewhat credible had you played football their, but you did not, so I really don't understand the necessity to bring those experiences into account.
Dumbshit...I have several best friends that played football at DIII level. I had close relationships with dozens of others as I was their RA. Do you know what a Resident Assistant is? I was the guy that many of my hall residents would come to talk about difficulties with classes, scheduling, damn, just about anything they might have a problem with. Hence, I got to know these guys very well.
You know why I brought it up, but because you have nothing to contradict what I posted, you're going to suggest that it is irrelevant. Wrong. Again, I brought it up because I compared what I know of them with what I also know of friends who have played DI ball. That permits me to compare/contrast different things. Things like the DI players at Michigan had a much more intense training schedule than my friends did in DIII. Now, if we were talking about training regimen I would bring that up, wouldn't I? The same applies here. My argument was about a longer season due to several rounds of playoffs further infringing upon a student-athletes time to devote to academics.
So far, you have not even attempted to present evidence to agree with or disagree with that. You've merely disregarded what I have presented, spun it to mean something it clearly did not, or said it was illogical.
Bring something other than sticking your head in the sand.
You're simply going on the assumption your time spent in track/cross country was similar to that of a football player at that level. Problem is, that's all it is: an assumption.
Do you really have to lie? Where did I ever make the comparison between cross-country/track and football?
Do not now attempt to blatantly lie about what I posted, MGo.
Fact is, you really haven't convinced anyone WHY the system wouldn't work, other than just claiming it is impractical based upon vague reasoning and ineffective personal experiences.
First, drop the pretense that you're speaking for anyone other than yourself in here.
Second, I don't have to convince anyone of anything. It was a discussion and I offered a different view.
Third, I have not presented anyting resembling vague. I have explained precisely what my argument is (Shoalzie's idea being impractical) and why (further eroding the student part of student-athlete for no good reason).
That you simply refuse to acknowledge my argument or actually present evidence/information that might counter it is your problem. I've simply been pointing it out for three pages now.
Many here have tossed your academic concentration argument out the window, considering the kids will be off when those games are going on anyway.
Again, you're not speaking for anyone else and they were not directly addressing my points.
Shoalzie's plan would have extended into December the regular season. Classes do not end until the middle of December. Pretty simple, really.
Your stance on impracticality on the polls is a non issue, because I'm not complaining the polls are inaccurate determinants, I simply want more teams to compete, regardless who they may be.
My argument regarding the polls was directly aimed at your four-team concept. Within that polls would have to be relied upon to select the 3 and 4 teams. As someone else pointed out, there would have been extreme controversy that last few years had that been implemented. The core problem with the current set-up is with the polls as the polls do not sufficiently resolve the question of a true national champion. I was also addressing that as it related to your concept.
Lastly, though no can can overwhelmingly PROVE a playoff will or won't work, my argument is much more beliveable considering a playoff, with polling systems, works at every other level.
I never argued that it woldn't work. I simply it was impractical given other considerations than crowning a true NC. If you would have addressed this directly we would not be watching you self-destruct by resorting to blatantly lying about my posts.
You simply could have responded that you weigh a true NC moreso than college education.
Of course there are differences between all levels of football, which I have already conceded to you. In fact, there is a HUGE difference between D1AA and DIII, yet both divisions run the system perfectly. I am making very logical correlations by using other examples that are proven to work.
Again, for about the tenth time in this thread...I never said it wouldn't work.
You're bringing vague personal accounts to the table, and attempting to use those accounts as a strong connection to why a playoff wouldn't work.
Eleventh time now...I never said it would not work. Can you understand this? Do you need a picture?
I just don't see the connection between your personal experiences and a failed D1 playoff system.
Well, of course not...I wasn't arguing that a playoff could not work or would fail, dumbass.
[/quote]There's just not enough meat to your argument.[/quote]
Of course, I didn't make that argument, anyway, dumbass.
You're simply going on the assumption your time spent in track/cross country was similar to that of a football player at that level. Problem is, that's all it is: an assumption.
There you go, again, Walter...lying about what I posted.
Please link to anything that suggested that I was comparing cross-country and track to football. Anything.
Lets make this a sig bet you sniveling little twat.
Also, please link to where I said a playoff couldn't work or wouldn't work.
Lets put a sig bet on that, too.
Well?
