05 Jan 10
Originally posted by quackquackWho said "cheated"?
I think it is completely incorrect to look at this as a list of teams that were cheated. Strength of schedule matters and this year pre-bowl season has Texas, Alabama, TCU, Bosie and Cincinnati all undefeated. Of course if only record mattered there would have be no reason for a whole bunch of teams to play tough games such as (Florida playing Alabama) ...[text shortened]... ely have the hardest schedule of the unbeatens and they clearly would be the National Champions.
Just pointing out that there's a history of teams not winning the National Championship even
though they've finished with a perfect record. And that the recent Utah and Boise State
undefeated, non-national title seasons are not as out of the ordinary as I thought they were. I
also found it particularly interesting that many of the years the "perfect" teams were beaten out
by teams without a perfect record.
Call it a list of reasons there should be a playoff. 🙂 I don't think Boise State is cheated this
year. I don't think Utah was last year. Or Auburn in 2004. I just think it's sad that the current
system won't even give them a chance to play for the title.
05 Jan 10
I don't think a playoff system is the correct solution. I love college football because every week really matters; you can't just get upset one week and turn in on in the playoffs. When a team goes undefeated including bowl win over an undefeated SEC of Big 12 team then they should be number one. There is no reason to make sure the WAC champ or any other minor conference champ gets to play the Florida/ Texas winner. Finally, if it is only about record why have conference at all? Maybe teams should try to schedule only only poor teams like Tulane, Akron and Western Kentucky so they can have a good record and then make the playoffs.
05 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by quackquackI understand that argument, and I think there is some validity to it in the sense of making
I don't think a playoff system is the correct solution. I love college football because every week really matters; you can't just get upset one week and turn in on in the playoffs. When a team goes undefeated including bowl win over an undefeated SEC of Big 12 team then they should be number one. There is no reason to make sure the WAC champ or any othe ...[text shortened]... Tulane, Akron and Western Kentucky so they can have a good record and then make the playoffs.
every single game of the season "more important." College football is unique in that way, and
I do like it. But isn't there something inherently wrong with having more than one undefeated
team left standing? Or even having a #1 and #2 at the end of the season who didn't even play
each other?
Look at the list again, it wasn't just lower conference teams that went undefeated without
getting a shot at the title. We're talking about the big conferences too. Auburn, Penn State,
Alabama, Miami.
"you can't just get upset one week and turn in on in the playoffs"
Why not? With the system in place now, you CAN get upset one week and still be voted #1
as long as you "turn it on" the rest of the season.
"When a team goes undefeated including bowl win over an undefeated SEC of Big 12 team
then they should be number one."
Let's take Auburn 2004 for example -- undefeated SEC team, beat Virginia Tech in the Sugar
Bowl. That's a pretty clear case that they should be #1, right? Nope -- not without a playoff.
Penn State 1994 -- undefeated Big 10 team, beat Oregon in the Rose Bowl. That's a pretty
clear case that they should be #1, right? Nope -- not without a playoff.
"Maybe teams should try to schedule only only poor teams like Tulane, Akron and Western
Kentucky so they can have a good record and then make the playoffs."
That's a great idea -- then the playoffs can weed out the pretenders and it will come down to
who really is the better team and not who more experts "think" is the better team.
I don't have a solution for a playoff...but I'm sure there is someone out there smart enough to
figure it out.
05 Jan 10
Originally posted by Traveling Again1932 Colgate?
This might be interesting to some of you.
Here's a list of the teams who finished with a perfect record - no losses or ties- in the past 50 years and still didn't win a national title. (Champion's record in parentheses)
1960 Yale 9-0 (Minnesota: 8-2)
1960 New Mexico State 11-0 (Minnesota: 8-2)
1961 Rutgers 9-0 (Ala ...[text shortened]...
2008 Utah 13-0 (Florida: 13-1)
2009 Boise State University 14–0 ('Bama or Texas: 14-0)
05 Jan 10
Originally posted by Traveling AgainI already did: the 6 BCS conference champs + 2 mid-major/independents would play utilizing the 4 big bowls as quarterfinals, adding two semi-final games and then playing the National Championship game two weeks later. No muss, no fuss.
I understand that argument, and I think there is some validity to it in the sense of making
every single game of the season "more important." College football is unique in that way, and
I do like it. But isn't there something inherently wrong with having more than one undefeated
team left standing? Or even having a #1 and #2 at the end of th ...[text shortened]... .but I'm sure there is someone out there smart enough to
figure it out.
06 Jan 10
Originally posted by no1marauderHow would Texas and Alabama of last year fit in to your playoff? Ranked #3 and #4 at the end of
I already did: the 6 BCS conference champs + 2 mid-major/independents would play utilizing the 4 big bowls as quarterfinals, adding two semi-final games and then playing the National Championship game two weeks later. No muss, no fuss.
the season, but both second in their conference. I would hope that a playoff system would
include both of those teams. And I'd want it to include this year's Florida team.
I think it should be less of what conference you are in (and what place you are in your conference)
and more of how good your team is. Will it ever happen with conference politics and $$?
Probably not. But I'd like to see it.
06 Jan 10
Originally posted by Traveling AgainI wouldn't; if you're the second best team in your conference you certainly don't deserve to play for the National Championship.
How would Texas and Alabama of last year fit in to your playoff? Ranked #3 and #4 at the end of
the season, but both second in their conference. I would hope that a playoff system would
include both of those teams. And I'd want it to include this year's Florida team.
I think it should be less of what conference you are in (and what place ...[text shortened]... Will it ever happen with conference politics and $$?
Probably not. But I'd like to see it.
06 Jan 10
Originally posted by no1marauderThis is why getting a playoff is so complicated. Going by your conference
I wouldn't; if you're the second best team in your conference you certainly don't deserve to play for the National Championship.
champions only in the playoff scenario, last year Virginia Tech would have got in
as the ACC champ, and they were the #19 ranked team in the nation. A couple
years before, Florida State would have got into the playoffs as the ACC champ, and
they were ranked #22 in the nation.
Last year, for example -- how can it be more fair to have VA Tech, the 19th ranked
team, in the playoff and not Texas, the 3rd ranked team? Doesn't seem fair. To me,
the point of a playoff would be to make the system more fair, and that would mean
letting the best teams fight it out for the championship. If the SEC or Big 10 or ACC
have three of the best teams in the nation in their conference, let all three of them
join the playoff. If a mid-conference has 2 of the top ranked teams, let both of them
in the playoff.
(And the only reason Texas - and Texas Tech, for that matter - were not considered
the best team in the Big 12 last year was because of the computer rankings in the
system. It wasn't because they weren't the best team in the conference.)
To me the point of a playoff would be to fix these things specifically. If the ACC were
such a good conference every single year and they deserve to have an automatic
bid, then why have their past champions been ranked only #19 and #22?
My dream is that one day the top teams in the nations will play for a true
championship, despite the color of their conference.
06 Jan 10
Originally posted by no1marauderThat makes perfect sense. Take a mediocre team from a crappy conference over better teams who wer penalized for being in good conferences? You wouldn't have a true champion there either. It would be just as contrived. And who is to say that the mid-major/ independents would be better than the second place teams who are penalized because they were in a conference at all.
I wouldn't; if you're the second best team in your conference you certainly don't deserve to play for the National Championship.
How about this? We'll have every team in the country play every other team in the country. They will play 5 games a week, sometimes six. They won't need practice because they will be playing games all the time.
Your "simple" solution is just that........ "simple".
06 Jan 10
Originally posted by Traveling AgainMost teams play the bulk of their games against teams in their conferences, so it's quite difficult to judge the relative strength of these teams. Why should the opinions of sportswriters and/or coaches be definitive in who gets in a playoff? Adding in subjective opinions just muddies the waters; for years a team like Boise State or TCU or Utah last year wouldn't have had a prayer of getting in even an 8 team playoff. This is patently unfair.
This is why getting a playoff is so complicated. Going by your conference
champions only in the playoff scenario, last year Virginia Tech would have got in
as the ACC champ, and they were the #19 ranked team in the nation. A couple
years before, Florida State would have got into the playoffs as the ACC champ, and
they were ranked #22 ...[text shortened]... ms in the nations will play for a true
championship, despite the color of their conference.
Saying that Florida can lose to Alabama in the SEC Championship Game but still get a chance to win the National Championship is ridiculous. Since it's accepted that their are 6 conferences that are the strongest in college football, it should be obvious that their champions should get a shot at the title. This would be a non-subjective qualification. As far as the other two spots, I'd much rather see mid-majors or independents of proven quality get a shot than an also-ran from one of the BCS conferences who had their shot and blew it.
06 Jan 10
Originally posted by shortcircuitPlease explain how a team that can't even win its conference can be the National Champion in a non-idiotic system. Please leave your silly sectional biases behind.
That makes perfect sense. Take a mediocre team from a crappy conference over better teams who wer penalized for being in good conferences? You wouldn't have a true champion there either. It would be just as contrived. And who is to say that the mid-major/ independents would be better than the second place teams who are penalized because they were in a c ...[text shortened]... l be playing games all the time.
Your "simple" solution is just that........ "simple".
06 Jan 10
Originally posted by no1marauderSort of like a team who loses by 10 points on a neutral site being elevated over the team that beat them with matching records?
Most teams play the bulk of their games against teams in their conferences, so it's quite difficult to judge the relative strength of these teams. Why should the opinions of sportswriters and/or coaches be definitive in who gets in a playoff? Adding in subjective opinions just muddies the waters; for years a team like Boise State or TCU or Utah last year ...[text shortened]... get a shot than an also-ran from one of the BCS conferences who had their shot and blew it.
06 Jan 10
Originally posted by shortcircuitAre you still crying about that?
Sort of like a team who loses by 10 points on a neutral site being elevated over the team that beat them with matching records?
Have your Big 12 change its rules about who qualifies as the league champion rather than give Big 12 teams over-representation in a playoff.
06 Jan 10
Originally posted by no1marauderOk, look at it this way. The number 1 rated team in the country goes undefeated all the way through their conference schedule and matches up against a team in the other division with 3 losses who wins their half of the league. The undefeated team stumbles and loses the league championship game by a point in the closing seconds of the game. Now you have a team with 3 losses automatically getting a shot at the national championship when they couldn't beat three of the teams in their own conference. How do you justify that. It can happen too. It could laos happen in multiple conferences.
Please explain how a team that can't even win its conference can be the National Champion in a non-idiotic system. Please leave your silly sectional biases behind.
I say, do away with conference championship games altogether. Do away with all non conference games. Make up 8 leagues with 11 teams each. The team with the best record from each league advances. In case of a tie for best record in each league, the tie break would be the head to head match up between those two teams. That is it. The 8 teams you have left can then matchup in 4 semi-final games. The slots would be pre-determined before the season with a random draw.
The four winners advance and play according to the pre-determined draw. Then the winners match for a NCS game.
That way the most games a team would play in a season would be 13, which would fit within NCAA guidelines.
Pretty straight forward. No human error. No polls. No guessing. Cuts down on travel costs too (for most).