A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (Locked down several times a year during the major championships)
Hayes gets EXACTLY the credit he deserves, 10.06. The problem is when people try to attribute more time to him or other athletes like C for cinders, or M for modern techniques (Arthur Lydiard, born 1917; Bud Winter, born 1909...several years before 2012 ) or Y ... because they want to.
Track and Field is about time or a distance/height or a combination of those factors. It's NOT an algorithm where some middle-aged reformed couch potato is World-record holder when height, weight, age, surface, race (someone will ultimately want to factor that too), altitude, barometric pressure and previous meal are taken into account. One part of this sport (masters) has already gone down that nonsense road with age-grading. If we can't roll it back, let's preserve at least some part of this sport for what IS - is.
Thankfully we still see a 9.69 (+2.0) as the world-record over a 9.70 (-1.0).
preston wrote:Hayes gets EXACTLY the credit he deserves, 10.06. The problem is when people try to attribute more time to him . . . One part of this sport (masters) has already gone down that nonsense road with age-grading.
While you're totally correct about the nonsense of age-grading in Masters T&F, there is a fundamental difference when trying to equate Hayes's 1964 10.06 as a 2012 10.06. He would OBVIOUSLY be faster on a modern track with modern spikes. Teleport him through time and space - unchanged - into the London final and he's AT LEAST sub-9.90, if not 9.80.
preston wrote:Hayes gets EXACTLY the credit he deserves, 10.06. The problem is when people try to attribute more time to him . . . One part of this sport (masters) has already gone down that nonsense road with age-grading.
[...] there is a fundamental difference when trying to equate Hayes's 1964 10.06 as a 2012 10.06. He would OBVIOUSLY be faster on a modern track with modern spikes. Teleport him through time and space - unchanged - into the London final and he's AT LEAST sub-9.90, if not 9.80.
sub-9.90? sub-9.80? Well at least you didn't say sub-9.60 this time. Trust... no better than 9.93, imo. By your assessments Figuerola would be the only sub-10 cuban (which is about right) and Jerome would be one of only 3 Canadians - and the only one to be actually born in The northern provinces of the United States of America. I think the allowances are not that great - my opinion. I have to believe that at a certain point of force/speed surface MAY not make that much of a difference - again, my opinion.
jazzcyclist wrote:Here's an idea. Why don't track statiticians start using the letter "C" to designate FAT times that werer un on cinder tracks? For example, why not list Bob Hayes PR as 10.06C? It would be similar to the "A" for times run at altitude, except that "C" would enhance the performance, not diminish it like "A' does. And so for the list of fastest football players ever the list would be:
Jim Hines 9.95A Trindon Holliday 10.00 Bob Hayes - 10.06C
Would the "C" designation be enough to satisfy folks who feel that Hayes doesn't get the credit that he deserves?
I just realized that I posted this on the wrong thread. GH, if you don't mind, would you please move my post and the ones that responed to it over to the Trindon Holliday thread so as not hijack the college footbal thread?
preston wrote:I have to believe that at a certain point of force/speed surface MAY not make that much of a difference - again, my opinion.
You bounce a steel ball on a modern track and then on a cinder track (perhaps in lane 1 after a distance race) and you tell me whether you see much of a difference in force return . . .
A damn shame Ohio State isn't eligible for postseason. Buckeyes/Irish, Meyer/Kelly. Would be a helluva matchup from so many angles(assuming both win next week, which at this rate is a big assumption lol)
athleticshushmail wrote:Alabama is going to beat Notre Dame by 35 if they play each other, these two teams aren't even on the same planet.
ND would have to beat USC first. I would not bet on it.
Look at the common opponent - Stanford. All three are about the same. The two factors weighing against ND right now is that it's in LA and that the Trojans are looking to take it out on somebody that they're having such an inconsistent year. They'd love to be the giant-killer. The numbers USC put up against Oregon were impressive and they CAN play defense, just not in every game. I see it as a pick-em game (which ain't saying much for the undefeated Irish, since SC is 7-4!).
guru wrote:A damn shame Ohio State isn't eligible for postseason. Buckeyes/Irish, Meyer/Kelly. Would be a helluva matchup from so many angles(assuming both win next week, which at this rate is a big assumption lol)
Ohio State gets murdered by a good team. They barely escaped from several decent or so-so teams (Indiana almost beat them, and then lost to Wisconsin at home the next week 62-17). Wisconsin is not a bad team, with two OT losses, one by 3 and another to a much-better than anticipated Oregon State team on the road before they canned their new Offensive Coordinator (they had to replace about four coaches).
athleticshushmail wrote:Alabama is going to beat Notre Dame by 35 if they play each other, these two teams aren't even on the same planet.
ND would have to beat USC first. I would not bet on it.
Look at the common opponent - Stanford. All three are about the same. The two factors weighing against ND right now is that it's in LA and that the Trojans are looking to take it out on somebody that they're having such an inconsistent year. They'd love to be the giant-killer. The numbers USC put up against Oregon were impressive and they CAN play defense, just not in every game. I see it as a pick-em game (which ain't saying much for the undefeated Irish, since SC is 7-4!).
Agreed. All which is likely moot if Barkley can't or doesn't play.
Dutra5 wrote:Agreed. All which is likely moot if Barkley can't or doesn't play.
It is indeed looking like Barkley is done for the season. That gives ND clear sailing into the BCS Bowl. I can't see Bama losing to Ga in the SEC game, so I'm officially calling the season. All hail the National Champion Tide.
I think Oregon, not Kansas State will be #5, but we'll find out in about another hour. As losses go, Oregon had a quality loss while Kansas State's loss was a really bad one.
I think Oregon, not Kansas State will be #5, but we'll find out in about another hour. As losses go, Oregon had a quality loss while Kansas State's loss was a really bad one.
The BCS standings will be out soon, but cbssports.com has the "BCS rankings" 8 hours earlier by applying the formula themselves. This is what they had this morning:
DrJay wrote:Yet another season in which we need a four-team playoff. Not an eight-team playoff. Four will always do just fine.
Well, if the season ended today, we really would need an eight-team playoff. Fortunately, the final regular season weekend plus the conference championship games should help sort things out.
KSU should have been treated like a non-AQ team ... they should have been dropped out of the top 10. That was a really bad loss. 4 touchdowns? And, the game wasn't that close.
If Kiffin doesn't crush that team that should remain nameless than he should be fired.
preston wrote:If Kiffin doesn't crush that team that should remain nameless than he should be fired.
From the Chicago Tribune:
This is where Notre Dame should be, on the pedestal it puts itself, living up to its own lofty standard. This is where the program belongs more than once every 19 years and shouldn't vacate again next Sunday until 2031. This is who they are and where they expect to be, looking at everybody else pressing their noses to the glass. This is the elevated status Notre Dame must attain to justify making all those decisions to remain independent in football.
This is where Notre Dame should be, on the pedestal it puts itself, living up to its own lofty standard. This is where the program belongs more than once every 19 years and shouldn't vacate again next Sunday until 2031. This is who they are and where they expect to be, looking at everybody else pressing their noses to the glass. This is the elevated status Notre Dame must attain to justify making all those decisions to remain independent in football.
Views like that are one of the reasons that I so despise everything about that school (Yes, that includes Regis Philbin!!!) This belief that they are owed is just sickening and it hurts college football.
My dream scenario a few years back was that the Big-10, Pac-12, Big-12, ACC and SEC conferences would go to 16 teams and leave that school that can't be named out of all the conferences, eventually forcing them out of the playoff picture altogether. With the news that the Big 10 has grabbed Rutgers and Maryland that brings the number to 14.
This is the bad Karma for the ACC allowing themselves to be used by THAT SCHOOL the same way that the Big East allowed themselves to be used. They would NEVER be able to tell the Big 10 that they're not going to split their football money. Serve the ACC right; I hope the Big 10 also grabs UCONN out of Big East and Boston College out of the ACC, but I'm not sure if the Big 10 thinks UCONN is strong enough academically for the Big 10.
By the way, I expect USC to beat Notre Dame without Matt Barkley. They still have great receivers, the back-up QB is good (except for the lack of experience), and so on.
j-a-m wrote:By the way, I expect USC to beat Notre Dame without Matt Barkley. They still have great receivers, the back-up QB is good (except for the lack of experience), and so on.
If that happens, we could have another all-SEC championship game if Florida can get past Florida State.
j-a-m wrote:By the way, I expect USC to beat Notre Dame without Matt Barkley. They still have great receivers, the back-up QB is good (except for the lack of experience), and so on.
I wound not be surprised if ND's best quarter out-scores USC, either.
26mi235 wrote:I wound not be surprised if ND's best quarter out-scores USC, either.
It won't be a cake-walk, but ND wouldn't still be undefeated if they couldn't beat a Barkley-less SC. I'm a card-carrying ND hata (have you seen this week's SI, with a picture of an uplifted ND golden helmet with TD Jesus reflected in it? - ugh!), but the talking heads are already disparaging ND's predicted win over SC as worthless because Barkley ain't there! I useta be a big SC-hata too, but I've mellowed and really, really hope they can pull the upset.
I think the NCAA member schools will rue the day that they let them get away with making up rules on the fly to drop the hammer on Penn State, because all it did was embolden them.
) or Y ... because they want to. 
sub-9.90? sub-9.80? 
GH, if you don't mind, would you please move my post and the ones that responed to it over to the Trindon Holliday thread so as not hijack the college footbal thread?
With the news that the Big 10 has grabbed Rutgers and Maryland that brings the number to 14.