College Football 2011

Originally posted by quackquack
Its simply not true that playoffs would make things better.

Would the LSU - Alabama game have mattered at all? Would the Stanford - Oregon game have mattered at all? Would Oregon and LSU have even played if each could have an extra loss but without the loss they would be in the top eight. In fact LSU could have lost two games and still been in the ...[text shortened]... team playoff and Arkansas was picked over your soft scheduled Boise team you'd still be crying.

What a ridiculous argument. Under the present system, the LSU-Alabama game didn't matter at all. Under a playoff system restricted to conference champions, it and the Stanford-Oregon game would have mattered a lot.

"Dumb" is every contradictory argument you make against a playoff.

"Soft scheduled" Boise still beat just as many top 25 teams as Arkansas did. How many SEC teams do you want in a 8 team playoff? 8? Anyway, I wouldn't complain this year if Boise State didn't make it into a playoff as they didn't win their conference. But that rule should apply to everyone not just be enfiorced against teams you and your "major" conference teams are afraid of playing.

Originally posted by no1marauder
What a ridiculous argument. Under the present system, the LSU-Alabama game didn't matter at all. Under a playoff system restricted to conference champions, it and the Stanford-Oregon game would have mattered a lot.

"Dumb" is every contradictory argument you make against a playoff.

"Soft scheduled" Boise still beat just a ...[text shortened]... e enfiorced against teams you and your "major" conference teams are afraid of playing.

Your playoff idea with only conference champions is moronic (but I guess you are the #1 moron so why should anyone be surprised).

The SEC has three top six teams. In fact it has two top two teams. What kind of system would have eight teams in a playoff and eliminate the #2 and #6 team? Your idea would make out of conference games like Oregon - LSU completely meaningless. Why would anyone want to be in a good conference? Why do you refuse to recognize that there is a huge difference between playing in a major conference and a minor one? Is there a limit to what you will advocate to help the Mountain West and other junk conferences? If you want to make college football more fair don't have the championship game in Lousiana and give LSU a home game.

PS The ALabama - LSU game certainly counted. It just ended up that Alabama was the second best team in the nation. Had OSU or Stanford gone undefeated they certainly would have been in the national chamionship game. Just because a team loses a game and is still the second best team in the nation does not mean the game did not count. It merely means it is not the only game that counted.

Originally posted by quackquack
Your playoff idea with only conference champions is moronic (but I guess you are the #1 moron so why should anyone be surprised).

The SEC has three top six teams. In fact it has two top two teams. What kind of system would have eight teams in a playoff and eliminate the #2 and #6 team? Your idea would make out of conference games like Oregon - LSU n does not mean the game did not count. It merely means it is not the only game that counted.

You're an idiot; "the game counted" just it doesn't matter who won it! LMAO!

"Experts" like yourself anointing who are the best teams without any possibility they have to prove it against tough inter conference competition is moronic. Time and time again we see teams like Arkansas which faced no meaningful outside competition get killed in a bowl. You whine and complain about the regular season having to count but then want to ignore the results of said season when it is playoff time. Even the BCS bars more than two teams from one conference being in the BCS bowls; unlike you, they aren't interested in an all-SEC lineup just because YOU believe the SEC is so obviously superior to everybody else.

I'd be willing to tweak the system I proposed to allow second teams from a conference IF it was a 16 team playoff, but that's as far as I'd go. It's bad enough giving a team that finished second in their division a chance at a national title; according to QQ even teams who finish third and below should get their chance! Enough stupidity.

The system I proposed would encourage tough inter conference match-ups, just as the BCS strongly discourages them. You'd lose nothing from a loss outside your conference, so the only result of scheduling tough would be better games with potentially more TV and gate money. I guess that's just too logical for a pinhead like yourself to figure out.

EDIT: Arkansas? They managed to lose to Ohio State in a bowl last year!

Originally posted by no1marauder
You're an idiot; "the game counted" just it doesn't matter who won it! LMAO!

"Experts" like yourself anointing who are the best teams without any possibility they have to prove it against tough inter conference competition is moronic. Time and time again we see teams like Arkansas which faced no meaningful outside competition get killed i ...[text shortened]... ure out.

EDIT: Arkansas? They managed to lose to Ohio State in a bowl last year!

Why do you always talk about last year? Ohio State had a completely different team this year (in large part due to suspensions). Ohio State was a lot worse this year. Arkansas was a lot better. Teams change; players change. We aren't deciding who is better for a five year period.

The LSU- Alabama game counted. It just isn't the only game that counts. If you only count one game why not just count the OSU - Iowa State game and say OSU stinks and they should not even me in a bowl game. Any one game is merely just that -- a game.

There is no playoff and thankfully you don't get to negotiate guidelines. I read the BCS is considering just picking the two best teams for the national championship game and letting the bowls pick the rest of the teams (and thereby eliminating the two team rule to prevent teams like Arkansas to not be hurt by the two current team maximum). Furthermore, it is not just my opinion -- there obviously is demand for teams that play tough schedules in tough conferences as the sugar bowl picks teams from the ACC and the BIG 10 when the have the opportunity and not teams from the Mountain West.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I'm not talking about basketball. I'm talking about the other Divisions in football. Perhaps you aren't aware, but there does exist playoffs in I-A (or whatever it's called now), II and III. They are going on NOW. No one in their right mind claims having them somehow "ruins" the regular season. If participation in the playoffs was dependent on winning yo ...[text shortened]... n is absolutely ruined by its inability to have its Championship decided on the field.

Division 1-A college football never had a playoff. You must mean division 1-AA or Championship Subdivision. Division 1-A is Football Bowl Subdivision.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I thought Alabama would beat LSU. They didn't. A mulligan is ridiculous when there are other worthy teams.

I agree that a rematch would be ridiculous from a fan point of view but Alabama has worked hard to be the team they are this year... would it be fair to deny them a shot at winning if they really are the best or second best team?

I mean they lost to the number one team in the nation in OT so they are clearly number two in the nation if LSU is a hands down number one.

In the NFL if a division winner beats a certain team in its division twice but that team gains a wildcard and beats the division winner in the playoffs and ends up winning the superbowl is that ridiculous? OR what if a team in the NFC creams a certain team in the AFC but then they play again in the superbowl... is that rediculous?

Originally posted by tomtom232
[b]I agree that a rematch would be ridiculous from a fan point of view

Well its a little late for this kind of feedback.

Now who is going to break the news to the BCS? 😛

Originally posted by tomtom232
I agree that a rematch would be ridiculous from a fan point of view but Alabama has worked hard to be the team they are this year... would it be fair to deny them a shot at winning if they really are the best or second best team?

I mean they lost to the number one team in the nation in OT so they are clearly number two in the nation if LSU is a hands d ...[text shortened]... reams a certain team in the AFC but then they play again in the superbowl... is that rediculous?

Well, If an NFL team goes 15-1 in the regular season and sweeps the playoffs and wins
the Super Bowl, are they considered the best team? Even though the team that beat them
during the regular season happened to finish with the worst record in the league?

The answer is yes.

Alabama did everything that was demanded of them to re-attain the #2 slot and earn
the National title shot.

No1's contention that a team that doesn't win their own conference shouldn't contend
is also crap, for this very reason...this year , the two best teams played in the same
conference.

Get over it folks, the best two teams are playing in the NCG. The fact that they played
during the regular season doesn't matter.

Originally posted by shortcircuit
Well, If an NFL team goes 15-1 in the regular season and sweeps the playoffs and wins
the Super Bowl, are they considered the best team? Even though the team that beat them
during the regular season happened to finish with the worst record in the league?

The answer is yes.

Alabama did everything that was demanded of them to re-attain the #2 slot ...[text shortened]... are playing in the NCG. The fact that they played
during the regular season doesn't matter.

That they are the two best teams is just an assertion. By every measure, Oklahoma State played a tougher schedule. The computers gave OK St. the nod. Alabama is playing for the championship only because a lot of people are as stupid as you and QQ. Get over that.

Originally posted by no1marauder
That they are the two best teams is just an assertion. By every measure, Oklahoma State played a tougher schedule. The computers gave OK St. the nod. Alabama is playing for the championship only because a lot of people are as stupid as you and QQ. Get over that.

There are 6 computers. Two of the six rank Alabama ahead of Oklahoma State. In both human polls Alabama is ranked ahead of Oklahoma State. It is just ridiculous to say that there is no basis to think Alabama belongs in the National Championship Game.

Originally posted by tomtom232
I agree that a rematch would be ridiculous from a fan point of view but Alabama has worked hard to be the team they are this year... would it be fair to deny them a shot at winning if they really are the best or second best team?

I mean they lost to the number one team in the nation in OT so they are clearly number two in the nation if LSU is a hands d ...[text shortened]... reams a certain team in the AFC but then they play again in the superbowl... is that rediculous?

How is that logical? Just because they lost at home to the best team means they are automatically the second best team? On what basis? They have one other win against a Top 20 team in the BCS while Oklahoma State has beaten 3 teams in the Top 14!

Originally posted by quackquack
There are 6 computers. Two of the six rank Alabama ahead of Oklahoma State. In both human polls Alabama is ranked ahead of Oklahoma State. It is just ridiculous to say that there is no basis to think Alabama belongs in the National Championship Game.

If you check your math, 4 is more than 2. Only SEC bias got Alabama in the championship; they clearly didn't deserve it.

Originally posted by no1marauder
If you check your math, 4 is more than 2. Only SEC bias got Alabama in the championship; they clearly didn't deserve it.

(1) It certainly isn't clear who should be #2. Two of the six computers thought Alabama belonged there and both human polls felt Alabama belonged there as did numberous people who expressed their opinion.
(2) It certainly isn't bias just because you disgree. The SEC has proved over and over again to be the best conference including signatures out of conference wins outside of the South by both Alabama and LSU.

What I don't get is why there is no mention of the plane crash that killed the OSU women's basketball coaches. It happened very close to game time and I'm sure it was a major distraction for the football team, especially the coaches.

You'd think that it would be taken into consideration with the loss, but since OSU didn't play the card, I never saw it mentioned by anyone else either.

Originally posted by quackquack
(1) It certainly isn't clear who should be #2. Two of the six computers thought Alabama belonged there and both human polls felt Alabama belonged there as did numberous people who expressed their opinion.
(2) It certainly isn't bias just because you disgree. The SEC has proved over and over again to be the best conference including signatures out of conference wins outside of the South by both Alabama and LSU.

As I said, hanging your hat on Alabama's win over Penn State is a bit absurd; the Nittany Lions lost by 38 against Wisconsin. Some "signature" win.

If it isn't clear who should be #2, the team that hasn't had the shot already against #1 should get it for the Championship. Alabama already got to play LSU, at HOME, and couldn't beat them. They hardly deserve a mulligan. As I have said the exact same arguments were made for a Ohio State-Michigan rematch a few years (Ohio State is the clear #1, Michigan almost beat them, so .......................................). That would have been a joke, but we would have never have known it.