Originally posted by BadwaterI wish they would. The trouble with that is that the SEC has owned college football for years now. In fact, how many NCG's have they run off now in a row? I've lost count.
Ok, just sent a letter on the reasons why to our local sports columnist who also writes for SI, but....
This is all moot this year. The Ducks will win the NC.
All I can say is, good luck with that!!
I for one do not think one should base decisions on just losses. I think a team should be rated on the teams they've defeated, then take into consideration how good a team they've lost.
Has Boise State played a team that's as good as South Carolina? Has Boise State defeated a team as good as Iowa or OSU? Has Boise State defeated a team as good as Oregon or Stanford?
If they don't defeat a team as good as the teams the other teams lost to, then how can you say Boise State wouldn't have lost to those teams too?
Play-off fixes all problems. To win a NC in a 16 team play off, a team will have to defeat 3 very good teams to get into the NC game. If you win the NC, you will have either defeated or defeated teams that defeated the top 15 teams in the nation. No hiding in a play off.
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
Originally posted by EladarExactly. I don't think we'll ever see a 16 game playoff, though. 4 or 8 teams is probably more realistic.
Play-off fixes all problems. To win a NC in a 16 team play off, a team will have to defeat 3 very good teams to get into the NC game. If you win the NC, you will have either defeated or defeated teams that defeated the top 15 teams in the nation. No hiding in a play off.
Originally posted by BadwaterI guess most people are idiots. Anyone with half a brain should understand that you can't just look at wins and losses. A perfect record against weak teams just means you are better than the weak teams you played.
Wins and losses are how every other sports determines what is the better team. Wins and losses are the only criteria to take into consideration. The rest is crap. May the best team win. Period.
Originally posted by EladarBoise State beat Virginia Tech which is leading the ACC. TCU smoked Baylor which is on top of one of the divisions in the Big12. Both beat Oregon State a pretty good PAC-10 team.
I guess most people are idiots. Anyone with half a brain should understand that you can't just look at wins and losses. A perfect record against weak teams just means you are better than the weak teams you played.
The strength of conferences and teams change over time; a claim that a schedule is "weak" can be a pretty subjective one these days.
Originally posted by EladarI agree with a playoff, but I'd make it the 6 BCS conference winners and two mid-majors and/or independents. I don't like the idea of a team finishing second or third in a conference but still getting a chance at the title (this ain't basketball).
Subjective views of which conference is better than another (even though they never go head to head) is the reason why we need a play off.
Big day for the mid-major contenders; Boise and TCU score impressive wins over expected tough competition. And Alabama loses, so the chance of any one loss BCS conference team leapfrogging them drops considerably. If Auburn and Oregon both don't win out, I think we'll see a mid-major in the BCS title game (assuming they win a couple of reasonably tough games: TCU against San Diego St. and Boise against Nevada).
Originally posted by EladarYou seem to want to reward teams for losing their conferences.
Bully for you if you don't like the chance of teams winning a championship who do not win their conference. All you are doing with your point of view is rewarding teams for playing in weak conferences.
But that's OK.
Supposedly "strong" i.e. BCS conferences would get automatic bids; supposedly "weak" i.e. non-BCS conferences wouldn't. If the "weak" conference champions couldn't compete, they'd be eliminated in the first i.e. Quarter Final round. I don't see anything particularly unfair in that.