06 Jan 10
Originally posted by no1marauderIsn't it just as ridiculous to say that Oklahoma would get in last year and get a shot at
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.
the title and Texas would not? Even though Texas beat Oklahoma.
Yes, in general, the big 6 are considered the strongest. But as we saw last year, a
conference's #2 team (Texas), #3 team (Texas Tech), and #4 team (Oklahoma
State) were all ranked higher than ACC's champion. Just because V-Tech won their
conference doesn't mean they were more deserving than any of those teams. An
automatic bid playoff system is not much better than what we have now.
Let the best teams have a shot. I understand the resistance, because college football
has conference loyalty like no other sport. People love their team, then love their
conference, and are passionate about it. I can see why they'd want their conference
to have an annual shot at the championship, and I can see why they don't want to
give it up since they already have it. But I don't think it's fair. And until we can
break loose of the hold the major conferences have on the system, I don't think a
real solution will ever happen.
06 Jan 10
Originally posted by shortcircuitNo one requires leagues to have conference championship games. My system doesn't either. But if you're going to have one it's seems a little ridiculous to ignore the result if it doesn't go the way it was expected to. If the leagues decided to do anyway with conference championship games in response to a playoff system that would be A-OK with me though you'd still have the problem of resolving ties in the standings.
Ok, 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 ...[text shortened]... aight forward. No human error. No polls. No guessing. Cuts down on travel costs too (for most).
My proposal is realistic; abolishing all present conferences isn't.
06 Jan 10
Originally posted by no1marauderThe hell it isn't realistic!! If you are going to change the structure of the way the game has been played for years, why not make it work and streamline it?
No one requires leagues to have conference championship games. My system doesn't either. But if you're going to have one it's seems a little ridiculous to ignore the result if it doesn't go the way it was expected to. If the leagues decided to do anyway with conference championship games in response to a playoff system that would be A-OK with me though y ...[text shortened]... ngs.
My proposal is realistic; abolishing all present conferences isn't.
Or is it because you didn't think of it??
At least mine has some fairness to it and will not allow the travesty that could occur in your proposal.
06 Jan 10
Originally posted by Traveling AgainI'd prefer to leave who gets into the playoffs based on as many objective factors as possible leaving out yours and others subjective opinions on who deserves it. Given your "logic" I fail to see what your problem is with the BCS; the two teams that are determined to be the best by subjective criteria play for the championship.
Isn't it just as ridiculous to say that Oklahoma would get in last year and get a shot at
the title and Texas would not? Even though Texas beat Oklahoma.
Yes, in general, the big 6 are considered the strongest. But as we saw last year, a
conference's #2 team (Texas), #3 team (Texas Tech), and #4 team (Oklahoma
State) were all ranked higher ...[text shortened]... major conferences have on the system, I don't think a
real solution will ever happen.
06 Jan 10
Originally posted by shortcircuitYes, it's realistic to think that all present conferences are going to be abolished.🙄
The hell it isn't realistic!! If you are going to change the structure of the way the game has been played for years, why not make it work and streamline it?
Or is it because you didn't think of it??
At least mine has some fairness to it and will not allow the travesty that could occur in your proposal.
06 Jan 10
Originally posted by no1marauderWhy would you have to abolish any of them? You would have to trim a team or two from some and start up a few others. You could also elect to shift some teams for geographic regions if you like, but not required. Why is that so difficult to see? But, if you want to play for the NCS, you MUST be in a conference...no independents. Everyone on the same level playing field.
Yes, it's realistic to think that all present conferences are going to be abolished.🙄
06 Jan 10
Originally posted by no1marauderAutomatic bids based on historical performances by conferences is hardly objective...
I'd prefer to leave who gets into the playoffs based on as many objective factors as possible leaving out yours and others subjective opinions on who deserves it. Given your "logic" I fail to see what your problem is with the BCS; the two teams that are determined to be the best by subjective criteria play for the championship.
Now I see you're just pulling my chain. 😉
My point is to get away from the two team playoff format that is the BCS right now -
because those teams are getting in based on, in my opinion, too many subjective
reasons (what conference you're in, what computers say about you, how many
writers and coaches vote for you, etc.)
Maybe it's just a matter of widening the net. Give more than two teams a chance,
because what we're seeing is that in any given year there are more than two teams
that have legitimate claims to being the #1 team in the nation. There has to be
some way to get the TOP 8 or 10 (or however many) teams into a playoff format to
decide who is #1.
And saying the #22 ranked team is more qualified to be in an 8-team championship
playoff than the #3 ranked team simply because of the conference they're in just
doesn't make any sense to me IF the goal is make sure the best teams play each
other to determine the champion. Seems that's something we'll just disagree on.
You can see from the list I posted earlier, there have been many cases where a team
finishes the season with a perfect record and another team wins the title even though
they've lost a game, BECAUSE of these subjective reasons. There wasn't even a
chance for the undefeated team to prove it (objectively) on the field.
Shortcircuit's random 8 team conferences is an interesting idea. Nothing subjective
about that. Teams will simply have to win games. No one can lean on their
conference crutch. Winners play off. Interesting. Not perfect -- but interesting.
06 Jan 10
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderWe must not ever mention one of college footballs step children and a national championship in the same breath. Now Cindarella must get back to her chores and be forbidden from ever attanding a ball!! ðŸ˜
Boise State wins another National Championship!
Edit: Speaking of step children, congrats to the Big Ten and specifically Iowa tonight. They have made the Big Ten have a winning bowl season with their win over GT. Who woulda thunk it? In fact, Northwestern almost beat Auburn. LOL.
06 Jan 10
Originally posted by whodeyHere, here! No way Boise St can be considered a NC candidate. They need to enter a real conference as does TCU. TCU choked. They should have played BSt. the same way they did Clemson, but they withered under the spotlight. Opponents only scored one offensive TD. Good game but neither team would beat any of the top three!
We must not ever mention one of college footballs step children and a national championship in the same breath. Now Cindarella must get back to her chores and be forbidden from ever attanding a ball!! ðŸ˜
Edit: Speaking of step children, congrats to the Big Ten and specifically Iowa tonight. They have made the Big Ten have a winning bowl season with their win over GT. Who woulda thunk it? In fact, Northwestern almost beat Auburn. LOL.
06 Jan 10
Originally posted by scacchipazzoFrom what I have heard, Boise State has offerred to play better teams but none want anything to do with them. Can you blame them? After all, why would USC want to play Boise State when they can beat up on the likes of Notre Dame?
Here, here! No way Boise St can be considered a NC candidate. They need to enter a real conference as does TCU. TCU choked. They should have played BSt. the same way they did Clemson, but they withered under the spotlight. Opponents only scored one offensive TD. Good game but neither team would beat any of the top three!
06 Jan 10
Originally posted by shortcircuitIt's a pipe dream and a worthless one; there's nothing wrong with the basic structure of college football nor should teams be forced into a conference if they don't want to belong to one.
Why would you have to abolish any of them? You would have to trim a team or two from some and start up a few others. You could also elect to shift some teams for geographic regions if you like, but not required. Why is that so difficult to see? But, if you want to play for the NCS, you MUST be in a conference...no independents. Everyone on the same level playing field.
A realistic playoff system has to satisfy: 1) The BCS Conferences; 2) The Major Bowls and (to a lesser extent) 3) The rest of the teams. No present BCS Conference is going to agree with a playoff system that excludes their champion based on how they are ranked by sportswriters, coaches and/or computers. The Major Bowls are not going to agree to a playoff system that doesn't include them and doesn't retain some of the traditional conference tie-ins. And the rest are going to want some assurance that the system won't screw their teams out of a playoff while some also ran that just lost its last game gets in because they're a traditional power with a bunch of screaming alumnus.
My proposal deals with all of that plus has the added bonus of not discouraging in-season matchups between strong teams. If you wanted a real playoff you'd support it, but most here just seem to favor a playoff because it might give their favorite teams a second bite at the apple after they've already tanked a big game.
06 Jan 10
Originally posted by Traveling AgainIt might shock you, but just because some sportswriters and coaches think a team is the 22nd best in the country doesn't mean it is. Given that the great majority of games are conference ones the rankings during the season are guesswork colored by pre-conceptions and biases.
Automatic bids based on historical performances by conferences is hardly objective...
Now I see you're just pulling my chain. 😉
My point is to get away from the two team playoff format that is the BCS right now -
because those teams are getting in based on, in my opinion, too many subjective
reasons (what conference you're in, what compute ...[text shortened]...
conference crutch. Winners play off. Interesting. Not perfect -- but interesting.
The idea that a team can finish behind another team in a league but still should get an equal shot at winning the title is ridiculous. A playoff of the league champions (including two mid-majors or the best independent) is the fairest system; if that 22nd ranked team is really inferior, we'll find out where it matters: on the field.
06 Jan 10
Originally posted by no1marauder"but most here just seem to favor a playoff because it might give their favorite
It's a pipe dream and a worthless one; there's nothing wrong with the basic structure of college football nor should teams be forced into a conference if they don't want to belong to one.
A realistic playoff system has to satisfy: 1) The BCS Conferences; 2) The Major Bowls and (to a lesser extent) 3) The rest of the teams. No present BCS ...[text shortened]... heir favorite teams a second bite at the apple after they've already tanked a big game.
teams a second bite at the apple after they've already tanked a big game."
I'm confused now. Are you suggesting that only undefeated teams should get a shot
at a playoff? Or are you suggesting that "tanking" a game against a lesser opponent
is okay, and that "tanking" a big game is somehow proof that the team didn't deserve
to be in the playoff hunt anyway? Some years the regular season ends with no
undefeated teams. That means they've all "tanked" a game at one point in the
season.
And, based on what we have to work with now, I agree with you completely about
your 3 points that need to be satisfied for a realistic system. The big conferences
have college football by the balls and they aren't going to give that up. It's
unrealistic to think they would. -- I just don't think it's fair, that's all. I'd rather see
the quality of the teams (and not which conference they are in) mean more than it
does now.