But CFB needs a playoff right??

[solo]

I tend to avoid these playoffs vs. bowls arguments, since they rarely provide any arguments that haven't been heard already ad naseum for years, and this thread is no exception, unfortunately. However, I think your 2nd question is based on some faulty premises:



First of all, European soccer doesn't use a playoff. Each team plays each other twice, home-and-away. At the end of the season, best record wins. Of course, that's with a "perfect" regular season schedule, so a playoff isn't necessary, strictly speaking. But they don't use a playoff. So you can't say "every other sport" uses a playoff.

Then there's the assumption that if bowls were better than playoffs, all the other sports would would use a bowl system. That's assuming that the same system is best for every sport. Imagine if the NASCAR champion was determined by a series of 2-car head-to-head races in a playoff formula. Would that make much sense to you? (Heck, there's another example of a sport that doesn't use a playoff. But then that opens up the "Is NASCAR really a sport?" question, and I'm sure as hell not going there, so never mind.) The point is, the "best" system for one sport is not necessarily the "best" system for all other sports as well.

That's also assuming that everyone will use the "best" system. I think a quick look around the world will show you that people very VERY often do not do what is "best."

Also, the wording of your question implies that since the majority of other sports use a playoff, the minority has some explaining to do. But in the real world, the majority is often in the wrong. There was once a time in this world's history where slavery was perfectly acceptable in the majority of the world's nations. A majority can very EASILY be just as wrong as a minority.

Anyway, I'm done being pedantic now. Just thought you might want to tweak or re-word question 2, or perhaps just eliminate it altogether. It's your weakest attack. The other 3 are far stronger.

Your point is somewhat critical, but Fair enough...Let's rephrase. Seeing that every other level of football in the United States from High School on up uses a playoff, isn't that evidence that a playoff is the best way to determine the champ for American football? Seriously...The NFL, High School, and every other divsion of college football use a playoff. There must be a reason why other levels of football don't adopt the bowl system. And the point is worth discussing without discussing NASCAR and Soccer.

 

[ACamp1900]

1.) it's fairly clear what soultion they have... as I said I would rather see two Unquestioned great teams square off with one being left out, instead of putting those teams who have proved all year they are the cream with teams that are getting a second or third chance to prove themselves and have nothing to lose... It's unfair to the team that played great consistently all season...
2.) Vince addressed this, there are pleanty of leauges that don't have playoffs... the only reason I see CFB getting this push is that cfb fans are very passionate (maybe more than any other sports fan in america today) and when popular belief says we need a playoff that passion leads to blind faith..
3.) Can we ever conclude that the best teams comes out on top in a playoff? absolutely not, a playoff addressing nothing to this question
4.) I would rather have Bosie and Utah not get their "legit shot" if that's what you want to call it then have those teams have one lucky night in a playoff round and knock off a truely great team there by letting an undeserving team win the title... playoffs open the door for that too much at least with the amount of teams allowed in in most sports including the NFl as we saw this past week...


We will certainly have to agree to disagree here as I too will not support a playoff until a playoff AT LEAST anwers those issues... simply because something has more common place does not make it better than the alternative... surely our history in this country, both in sports and from a broader scope has taught us that... Solo, are you like me? is this getting old yet? neither of us are getting anywhere lol

 

[FleaFlicker]

I will revisit my stance on the bowl system when Bowl system advocates can provide reasonable answers to the following:

1. What solution does the BCS offer for when 3 teams go undefeated?
2. If the bowl system is the best way to determione a champ, why does no other sport use it including the lower divisions of college football? Why does every other sport use a playoff to fairly determine their champ but college football uses the bowl system?
3. Can we truly and conclusively determine who the 2 best teams are or os there often signficiant doubt about the #2 team?
4. Does a non-BCS conference team other than ND (which compromises 44 % of NCAA Div 1a teams) truly stand a chance to win the title? We have had situations recently (Utah and Boise St) where a non BCS conference produced a title worthy team.

A playoff adequately and fairly addresses all the points above whereas the bowl system does not. And the underlying theme that we haven't discussed is that the only reason the bowl system exists is to make money. It is a revenue generating machine masquerading as a post season for Div 1a football. This is most clearly evident by looking at the history of bowl games. Back in the 30', 40's, and 50's the college football champion was named even before the bowl games were played. Their origin was simply to generate revenue and that is still the case today. We have simply dressed it up a bit. Aside from this final point though, if any bowl system advocate can truly and fairly addreess ALL 4 points above, I would certainly re-evaluate my stance.

I don't tend to agree with you on much, but I do on this one.

There is no logical reasoning for having a bowl system decide a champion. If this were a world where absolutel fairness dictated every sports post-season, the playoffs would be the closest to that system.

That being said, CFB doesn't owe it to anybody to make their system fair. Every organization in the world operates off of similar principals. And the primary one is normally monetary gain. SO from that perspective, as an organization, the bowl system is best for them, it's just not best at determining a champion in the fairest way.

 

[FleaFlicker]

1.) it's fairly clear what soultion they have... as I said I would rather see two Unquestioned great teams square off with one being left out, instead of putting those teams who have proved all year they are the cream with teams that are getting a second or third chance to prove themselves and have nothing to lose... It's unfair to the team that played great consistently all season...
2.) Vince addressed this, there are pleanty of leauges that don't have playoffs... the only reason I see CFB getting this push is that cfb fans are very passionate (maybe more than any other sports fan in america today) and when popular belief says we need a playoff that passion leads to blind faith..
3.) Can we ever conclude that the best teams comes out on top in a playoff? absolutely not, a playoff addressing nothing to this question
4.) I would rather have Bosie and Utah not get their "legit shot" if that's what you want to call it then have those teams have one lucky night in a playoff round and knock off a truely great team there by letting an undeserving team win the title... playoffs open the door for that too much at least with the amount of teams allowed in in most sports including the NFl as we saw this past week...


We will certainly have to agree to disagree here as I too will not support a playoff until a playoff AT LEAST anwers those issues... simply because something has more common place does not make it better than the alternative... surely our history in this country, both in sports and from a broader scope has taught us that... Solo, are you like me? is this getting old yet? neither of us are getting anywhere lol

I have a problem with 3 and 4 of your argument.

You are right that a playoff doesn't perfectly define the best team of a season. But it DOES define the team that consistently played the best within those play-off rounds. And the regular season is important because it gives you advantages in those play-off games (and/or qualifies you for them). I know CFB isn't a perfect math, as it shouldn't be....

But there is no better, more plausible way in CFB to determine a champion, than a playoff. It's fair to say that, in a playoff, EVERY team does have a chance to win the National Championship when the season starts. If you are a mid-major, and go undefeated while beating crappy teams, and then you go against an SEC powerhouse that was also undefeated, in the playoffs... and you win!... You just proved that on that day, you were the better team.

The one thing you CAN'T argue about in CFB this year, was whether Florida was better than OSU, LSU was better than us, etc. Because they played.

Even if Boise St plays Florida 10 times, and if only one of those times, Boise St would win. That should still count. i.e. San Diego this year, I don't care if you had the best regular season, you HAD your chance. You missed your chance. Boise St. Can't say that this year. They never had their chance.

Bowl systems don't provide a chance, and the fact that their is so much debate on rankings proves that it isn't clear cut, and probably not the most logical. Playoffs provide a chance to every team. Even if they are far and away the best team for the entire year, if a team has the flu and loses a playoff game, they still ost, and had they not lost, they would have won the National Championship.

 

[ACamp1900]

I don't tend to agree with you on much, but I do on this one.

There is no logical reasoning for having a bowl system decide a champion. If this were a world where absolutel fairness dictated every sports post-season, the playoffs would be the closest to that system.

That being said, CFB doesn't owe it to anybody to make their system fair. Every organization in the world operates off of similar principals. And the primary one is normally monetary gain. SO from that perspective, as an organization, the bowl system is best for them, it's just not best at determining a champion in the fairest way.

WEll you make many good points here as Solo did... but I would say a playoff is far from fair... it's just different... this isn't directed at you FleaF so please understand that... your comments simply did bring up a side point... the "playoff guy" usually has an arrogance about him that sounds somewhat like that, "well a playoff is fair for everyone and solves all the world's problems including global warming and world hunger... and the bowl guy is an all about money good ole boy and who doesn't care about fairness and enjoys slapping baby's for fun."

as I have stated many times my point of view is that a playoff does not solve the issue of fairness a bit, it's simply a different system that hurts from different angles... why destroy the history and long standing passions of CFB to implement a system like that?

 

[FleaFlicker]

WEll you make many good points here as Solo did... but I would say a playoff is far from fair... it's just different... this isn't directed at you FleaF so please understand that... your comments simply did bring up a side point... the "playoff guy" usually has an arrogance about him that sounds somewhat like that, "well a playoff is fair for everyone and solves all the world's problems including global warming and world hunger... and the bowl guy is an all about money good ole boy and who doesn't care about fairness and enjoys slapping baby's for fun."

as I have stated many times my point of view is that a playoff does not solve the issue of fairness a bit, it's simply a different system that hurts from different angles... why destroy the history and long standing passions of CFB to implement a system like that?

I'm curious, because i just don't see it, what are the unfair angles to teams in a playoff? I understand that the best team for the entire year may not win. But the point is, they have a chance to win. If every team has a chance, and they fail when they have that chance, I see that as completely fair.

 

[ACamp1900]

I'm curious, because i just don't see it, what are the unfair angles to teams in a playoff? I understand that the best team for the entire year may not win. But the point is, they have a chance to win. If every team has a chance, and they fail when they have that chance, I see that as completely fair.

Respectfully... but I don't, simple as that... teams that haven't shown they are of championship quality all season should not be allowed to derail a team that has... (see Seatlle 94 among many others, and no I'm not a soncis fan, it's just a good example) and what teams don't have a chance? If Bosie and Utah played a D1 schedule I would see the point... Auburn? well as I said both systems are unfair to a degree imo, "fairness" is hard to get to in sports these days, doesn't matter what sport you're in... my stance has always been why destroy the history of the bowl system (when the Rose Bowl is as much a part of American sports history as the Super Bowl or the World Series) for a system that just brings about new issues in and of itself...

 

[FleaFlicker]

Respectfully... but I don't, simple as that... teams that haven't shown they are of championship quality all season should not be allowed to derail a team that has... (see Seatlle 94 among many others, and no I'm not a soncis fan, it's just a good example) and what teams don't have a chance? If Bosie and Utah played a D1 schedule I would see the point... Auburn? well as I said both systems are unfair to a degree imo, "fairness" is hard to get to in sports these days, doesn't matter what sport you're in... my stance has always been why destroy the history of the bowl system (when the Rose Bowl is as much a part of American sports history as the Super Bowl or the World Series) for a system that just brings about new issues in and of itself...

I think that there is a way to keep both in tact though. It's just that the Rose Bowl game would take on a new meaning. Let's say it is an 8 team playoff.

4 games the first week, maybe two weeks after the regular season ends. 2 games the next week, 1 game the next week. 7 games total. Two of the newer BCS bowls could be added to two higher up regular bowls to make the first round. Trust me, they would still get plenty of revenue.

And then maybe the semifinal and final games could be rotated among the 3 biggest BCS games with the most history.

So rotate between the Orange Bowl, Sugar Bowl and Rose Bowl (all three are spread out geographically as well.

I know you aren't going to agree with me, but it just seems to make a lot of sense in my head. As VY said, this has been discussed backwards and forwards. I'd personally absolutely love it, as would the majority of CFB fans... it seems, but alas, it won't happen like that for quite some time.

I would have loved for the Rose Bowl, Orange Bowl, Sugar Bowl, and Fiesta Bowl to have had title implications, it would have been awesome and added a lot more excitement to all of the games, IMO.

 

[solo]

Respectfully... but I don't, simple as that... teams that haven't shown they are of championship quality all season should not be allowed to derail a team that has... (see Seatlle 94 among many others, and no I'm not a soncis fan, it's just a good example) and what teams don't have a chance? If Bosie and Utah played a D1 schedule I would see the point... Auburn? well as I said both systems are unfair to a degree imo, "fairness" is hard to get to in sports these days, doesn't matter what sport you're in... my stance has always been why destroy the history of the bowl system (when the Rose Bowl is as much a part of American sports history as the Super Bowl or the World Series) for a system that just brings about new issues in and of itself...

Sorrym but there just isn't a legitimate issue with a playoff. I don't think I am going to change your mind, but I do want specifics from you.

What is not fair about every conference champ getting an EQUAL shot to win the title? It is completely fair. Let's say that the Pac 10 and Big east have down years, but one team from each confeence goes undefeated having played absolutely nobody out of conference. How is it fair that these teams get a shot over one loss teams that played much harder schedules?

You say that a team that hasn't proven to be championship calibre shouldn't get a chance to derail a team that has? Everybody that is in the playoffs has earned it and proven that they are championship calibre. That's just ut, how do you decide which 2 teams and 2 teams only are "champuionship calibre"? You can't.

Really, what I want to hear you say is that you simply like the bowl system. That is your only valid argument. You offer no solution for 3 undefeated teams. You offer no solution for how to prove which 2 teams and 2 teams only were champiosnhip calibre. You simply throw out a few instances where a good but not phenomenal team won a playoff.

 

[ACamp1900]

I think that there is a way to keep both in tact though. It's just that the Rose Bowl game would take on a new meaning. Let's say it is an 8 team playoff.

4 games the first week, maybe two weeks after the regular season ends. 2 games the next week, 1 game the next week. 7 games total. Two of the newer BCS bowls could be added to two higher up regular bowls to make the first round. Trust me, they would still get plenty of revenue.

And then maybe the semifinal and final games could be rotated among the 3 biggest BCS games with the most history.

So rotate between the Orange Bowl, Sugar Bowl and Rose Bowl (all three are spread out geographically as well.

I know you aren't going to agree with me, but it just seems to make a lot of sense in my head. As VY said, this has been discussed backwards and forwards. I'd personally absolutely love it, as would the majority of CFB fans... it seems, but alas, it won't happen like that for quite some time.

I would have loved for the Rose Bowl, Orange Bowl, Sugar Bowl, and Fiesta Bowl to have had title implications, it would have been awesome and added a lot more excitement to all of the games, IMO.

eh, some people share your idea... i don't like it at all... it's not the Rose Bowl, It's not the Orange bowl it's just a playoff game with a fake title... the Rose Bowl is CFB's super bowl that puts the Big Ten Champ vs the Pac Ten champ... I personally don't want to see that changed...

BUT on your note... i think a plus one is the best compromise that comes the closest to pleasing everyone... hell just put the BCS title game that is now in play one week after the bowl games... and whoever has the highest system rankings POST bowl games plays in that game... that would have solved Auburn, Utah and Bosie's beef as they then would have their shots if not in the title game then against other bowl teams that Utah and Bosie would have lost to imo ...lol, but if they somehow won, they'd have their shot... i guess .... that solves a lot of things and it keeps the people like me who can't stand playoff systems happy...

only probelm I have with that is I find it hard to believe playoff guy would stop there he'd just turn it into a stepping stone to ruining the sport simply because popular belief is on his side... oh well.. got to go now... to be continued?

 

[ACamp1900]

Sorrym but there just isn't a legitimate issue with a playoff. I don't think I am going to change your mind, but I do want specifics from you.

What is not fair about every conference champ getting an EQUAL shot to win the title? It is completely fair. Let's say that the Pac 10 and Big east have down years, but one team from each confeence goes undefeated having played absolutely nobody out of conference. How is it fair that these teams get a shot over one loss teams that played much harder schedules?

You say that a team that hasn't proven to be championship calibre shouldn't get a chance to derail a team that has? Everybody that is in the playoffs has earned it and proven that they are championship calibre. That's just ut, how do you decide which 2 teams and 2 teams only are "champuionship calibre"? You can't.

Really, what I want to hear you say is that you simply like the bowl system. That is your only valid argument. You offer no solution for 3 undefeated teams. You offer no solution for how to prove which 2 teams and 2 teams only were champiosnhip calibre. You simply throw out a few instances where a good but not phenomenal team won a playoff.

You make it seem like it's me who's not hearing you... it you who's not hearing me... a playoff system is not fair... I have explained why... look at the NHL and NBA why is it fair to have a #8 seed at a game or two over .500 get a shot at getting hot for three or four games and ending the season of a team that played great wll year?This happens in the NHL every two to three years or so... I do not feel it fair or proper to let teams like that even have that shot... If you sit and think about it it's not that hard to seeand it's not a few instances, it pretty much happens once a year across the four major american sports... in fact the best team rarely ever wins a playoff... just the hottest... is it really so hard to see why I have issue with that?

 

[solo]

eh, some people share your idea... i don't like it at all... it's not the Rose Bowl, It's not the Orange bowl it's just a playoff game with a fake title... the Rose Bowl is CFB's super bowl that puts the Big Ten Champ vs the Pac Ten champ... I personally don't want to see that changed...

QUOTE]

THIS IS THE STATEMENT I WAS WAITING FOR. FINALLY. We get to the crux of his argument. He likes things the way they are. It's not about the best and most fair way to determine the champion. He simply likes the status quo.

BINGO. That is the essence of every bowl system advocates argument. They can dress it up with all the excuses in the world. In the end, they simply like things the way they are.

 

[FleaFlicker]

eh, some people share your idea... i don't like it at all... it's not the Rose Bowl, It's not the Orange bowl it's just a playoff game with a fake title... the Rose Bowl is CFB's super bowl that puts the Big Ten Champ vs the Pac Ten champ... I personally don't want to see that changed...

BUT on your note... i think a plus one is the best compromise that comes the closest to pleasing everyone... hell just put the BCS title game that is now in play one week after the bowl games... and whoever has the highest system rankings POST bowl games plays in that game... that would have solved Auburn, Utah and Bosie's beef as they then would have their shots if not in the title game then against other bowl teams that Utah and Bosie would have lost to imo ...lol, but if they somehow won, they'd have their shot... i guess .... that solves a lot of things and it keeps the people like me who can't stand playoff systems happy...

only probelm I have with that is I find it hard to believe playoff guy would stop there he'd just turn it into a stepping stone to ruining the sport simply because popular belief is on his side... oh well.. got to go now... to be continued?

I don't agree that a playoff would ruin the sport. I admit that I love it now, but I honestly think I would love it even more if there were a playoff. I love March Madness, I love the College World Series (I live in Omaha). Those are my favorite parts of those respective sports. But I can't say the bowl season is my favorite time in CFB.

People argue that the regular season is a playoff of sorts. but it clearly isn't when teams can win every game and still not have a shot at the title.

In terms of teams like Boise St. and Utah having a chance to get in the NC game if they schedule tougher opponents... Yes and no, they could schedule slightly tougher OOC competition, but because they are in weaker conferences, that will always be challenged. And we can't exactly just add all of those teams to power conferences either. So they are stuck, and the top teams in the country will always be from the major conferences. Even if the mid-major teams are actually better teams, it is set up so that each year of CFB is somewhat predetermined among Div. 1A. Nevada has literally no shot at the NC next year, nor Hawaii. But every team from a major conference does. Even the teams like Colorado who lost their opener to a Div. 1AA school.

 

[ACamp1900]

eh, some people share your idea... i don't like it at all... it's not the Rose Bowl, It's not the Orange bowl it's just a playoff game with a fake title... the Rose Bowl is CFB's super bowl that puts the Big Ten Champ vs the Pac Ten champ... I personally don't want to see that changed...

QUOTE]

THIS IS THE STATEMENT I WAS WAITING FOR. FINALLY. We get to the crux of his argument. He likes things the way they are. It's not about the best and most fair way to determine the champion. He simply likes the status quo.

BINGO. That is the essence of every bowl system advocates argument. They can dress it up with all the excuses in the world. In the end, they simply like things the way they are.

boy are you stuck on that... it's a small part not the entire arguement... but as YOU said you had your mind made up already and looked for any point to insert you fallacy...

 

[FleaFlicker]

You make it seem like it's me who's not hearing you... it you who's not hearing me... a playoff system is not fair... I have explained why... look at the NHL and NBA why is it fair to have a #8 seed at a game or two over .500 get a shot at getting hot for three or four games and ending the season of a team that played great wll year?This happens in the NHL every two to three years or so... I do not feel it fair or proper to let teams like that even have that shot... If you sit and think about it it's not that hard to seeand it's not a few instances, it pretty much happens once a year across the four major american sports... in fact the best team rarely ever wins a playoff... just the hottest... is it really so hard to see why I have issue with that?

But the hoottest team proved that they were better on that current day... on the field. And not among writers and people with conference and hidden agenda's. I.E. ESPN and Big 10 FB. Or ND and NBC, etc. When 2/3 rankings are determined by bias sources, and those bias sources determine who gets a title shot. in one game, that's much less fair than a team losing to another team on the field. Regardless of whether or not it has to do with the fact that one team was hot, and the other wasn't.

 

[ACamp1900]

But the hoottest team proved that they were better on that current day... on the field. And not among writers and people with conference and hidden agenda's. I.E. ESPN and Big 10 FB. Or ND and NBC, etc. When 2/3 rankings are determined by bias sources, and those bias sources determine who gets a title shot. in one game, that's much less fair than a team losing to another team on the field. Regardless of whether or not it has to do with the fact that one team was hot, and the other wasn't.

I disagree... it's unfair either way

 

[FleaFlicker]

Ah well, agree to disagree then. And we'll just leave it at that

I just think there are degrees of unfairness, like the lesser of two evils, and I see the playoff system as the lesser.

 

[ACamp1900]

eh, some people share your idea... i don't like it at all... it's not the Rose Bowl, It's not the Orange bowl it's just a playoff game with a fake title... the Rose Bowl is CFB's super bowl that puts the Big Ten Champ vs the Pac Ten champ... I personally don't want to see that changed...

QUOTE]

THIS IS THE STATEMENT I WAS WAITING FOR. FINALLY. We get to the crux of his argument. He likes things the way they are. It's not about the best and most fair way to determine the champion. He simply likes the status quo.

BINGO. That is the essence of every bowl system advocates argument. They can dress it up with all the excuses in the world. In the end, they simply like things the way they are.

In fact I'm glad you point this out... the playoff guy is the one who wants status quo... sports wide... THEY don't care about fairness any more than the next guy...

also, why were you waiting for this point so much? because you have no defense for it and were ready to react with plain over exitement to take away from it's validity? Every point playoff guy can add to the arguement has at worst a subjective answer to it from bowl guy... ALMOST every point bowl guy can bring can be answered by playoff guy at worst subjectively as well... that's why this debate has continued so long well beyond this thread.. BUT this point can not be handled by playoff guy, you knew this and prepared yourself the only way you knew how... by representing it as the ONLY point rather than one of the better ones...

 

[ACamp1900]

Ah well, agree to disagree then. And we'll just leave it at that

I just think there are degrees of unfairness, like the lesser of two evils, and I see the playoff system as the lesser.

I would agree with the degrees for sure, I just see them as equal just different... anyway Cheers for the talk... now I MUSt go as I am late for an apointment...

solo, if you have anything else please go ahead and I will return at the latest tomorrow... both of you take care

 

[solo]

In fact I'm glad you point this out... the playoff guy is the one who wants status quo... sports wide... THEY don't care about fairness any more than the next guy...

also, why were you waiting for this point so much? because you have no defense for it and were ready to react with plain over exitement to take away from it's validity? Every point playoff guy can add to the arguement has at worst a subjective answer to it from bowl guy... ALMOST every point bowl guy can bring can be answered by playoff guy at worst subjectively as well... that's why this debate has continued so long well beyond this thread.. BUT this point can not be handled by playoff guy, you knew this and prepared yourself the only way you knew how... by representing it as the ONLY point rather than one of the better ones...

If you want to debate each point one at a time, and only one point at a time, I would gladly do that.

 

[Timugen]

I'm curious, because i just don't see it, what are the unfair angles to teams in a playoff? I understand that the best team for the entire year may not win. But the point is, they have a chance to win. If every team has a chance, and they fail when they have that chance, I see that as completely fair.

Everyone has a "chance" in the current system. Schedule strong, respectable opponents and no cream-puffs (conference obligations aside) and win all your games. Every game of the year is part of your "chance." If you miss the title game because you had 1 loss or something, well you had your "chance" and lost, just as if you were in a playoff system and lose a game. You had your "chance;" you just lost.

 

[sonomairishfan]

If you don't think the San Diego Chargers were the best team in the NFL this year I question your IQ of the sport... but for yet another year an inferior team will be crowned "champion" of the NFL... and to me it ruins the league and I am close to done with it...

but let's go cry until CFB is equally ruined by a crock system where the best team almost NEVER wins... BAH!

the chargers are not the best team in the NFL this year. that was proven by the pats. if they were the superior team, they would have won the game. they had their chances but didn't finish the job.

how should the nfl decide it's champion? the tournament that they have set up is fine. what do you want coaches and newpapers to decide who gets the trophy????

 

[FleaFlicker]

Everyone has a "chance" in the current system. Schedule strong, respectable opponents and no cream-puffs (conference obligations aside) and win all your games. Every game of the year is part of your "chance." If you miss the title game because you had 1 loss or something, well you had your "chance" and lost, just as if you were in a playoff system and lose a game. You had your "chance;" you just lost.

It's not like any team can automaticall schedule any team they want. You think if Nevada called up and said, we want to play Michigan and USC for our OOC games in 2010, that both schools would just be like, "ok". I seriously doubt it. You have to be lucky to have scheduled a powerhouse OOC game, it's not like any team can do it.

And since there are conference affiliations, like in the WAC, you have to play all those weak games too. It's not like every school has a chance, every year, which was my point.

In order for an undefeated mid-major team to go to the championship game, they would have to win every game by 30+ points, and have 2 wins over "strong" FB programs. Considering every "strong" FB program feels like scheduling pansies OOC. I find this hard to swallow, it just isn't possible for 90% of mid-major teams.

I understand what you are saying abotu 1-loss teams, they had their chance, but that isn't what I am talking about. I am talking about undefeated teams that never lost on Saturday. And never get a chance to prove, whether good or bad, that they are national champions that year. If a team like OSU can collapse against Florida, whose to say they couldn't have collapsed to BSU? You just never know until you see them play it on the field... in a playoff.

 

[ACamp1900]

If you want to debate each point one at a time, and only one point at a time, I would gladly do that.

sounds good to me my friend... I'll be here tomorrow, long day... hopefully you'll be too and we can give it a go?

the chargers are not the best team in the NFL this year. that was proven by the pats. if they were the superior team, they would have won the game. they had their chances but didn't finish the job.

how should the nfl decide it's champion? the tournament that they have set up is fine. what do you want coaches and newpapers to decide who gets the trophy????

yeah and the Cardinals were the best team in baseball this past season.... right?

good night for now

 

[FleaFlicker]

sounds good to me my friend... I'll be here tomorrow, long day... hopefully you'll be too and we can give it a go?



yeah and the Cardinals were the best team in baseball this past season.... right?

good night for now

No, but they were the best team of the post-season, and because of the regular season, they had the least amount of advantages when entering that post-season (i.e. Home-field advantage)

 

[Fighting_Irish9]

No, but they were the best team of the post-season, and because of the regular season, they had the least amount of advantages when entering that post-season (i.e. Home-field advantage)

I'm a Cardinals fan, and sorry but they were very average last year and got lucky in the playoffs

They won a tournament....good for them..

However College football rewards the team with the best overall season in college football....and IMO that is a better way to reward a champion

 

[ACamp1900]

I'm a Cardinals fan, and sorry but they were very average last year and got lucky in the playoffs

They won a tournament....good for them..

However College football rewards the team with the best overall season in college football....and IMO that is a better way to reward a champion

FI9 you know me...I think, I know from the ESPN boards... if you do you know I am a Cards fan too... at least after the Angels... LOVEED ozzie growing up... anyway nothing that I saw from the Cardinals last year was "Champion" as you also stated... that's the absurdity of a playoff.. The Pittsburgh Steelers as the best team in the NFl last year was as laughable as the idea of the Cardinals... what is the point of crowning a team Champion in the first place...? to say they were the best team that given year correct?... a playoff does not accomplish this, all it does is state who got bounces, breaks, lucky and or hot for a couple weeks... if the best team all year wins the playoff format in any given sport then GREAT but the system itself is not set up for that to happen, in fact its barely even concerned with... MLB NFL NHL and NBA prove this... the "well the best team always wins" people crack me up... didn't the Chargers beat the Pats by like 30 earlier this season?... WAY too much is put into a playoff system and it doesn't sit right with me... anyone who sits back and thinks about the entire reason for having a playoff to crown a champion in the first place would have to at very least come to grips with its absurdity... at very least...
playoff systems in many ways is self defeating in this light... why use them to determine the best team for the enitre year when they consistently come up short of doing so... by saying well in the interest of fairness we should do bla bla bla, you lose the very meaning and or reason for even crowning a champion...

simply put, I couldn't agree with FI9's comment more

 

[solo]

FI9 you know me...I think, I know from the ESPN boards... if you do you know I am a Cards fan too... at least after the Angels... LOVEED ozzie growing up... anyway nothing that I saw from the Cardinals last year was "Champion" as you also stated... that's the absurdity of a playoff.. The Pittsburgh Steelers as the best team in the NFl last year was as laughable as the idea of the Cardinals... what is the point of crowning a team Champion in the first place...? to say they were the best team that given year correct?... a playoff does not accomplish this, all it does is state who got bounces, breaks, lucky and or hot for a couple weeks... if the best team all year wins the playoff format in any given sport then GREAT but the system itself is not set up for that to happen, in fact its barely even concerned with... MLB NFL NHL and NBA prove this... the "well the best team always wins" people crack me up... didn't the Chargers beat the Pats by like 30 earlier this season?... WAY too much is put into a playoff system and it doesn't sit right with me... anyone who sits back and thinks about the entire reason for having a playoff to crown a champion in the first place would have to at very least come to grips with its absurdity... at very least...
playoff systems in many ways is self defeating in this light... why use them to determine the best team for the enitre year when they consistently come up short of doing so... by saying well in the interest of fairness we should do bla bla bla, you lose the very meaning and or reason for even crowning a champion...

simply put, I couldn't agree with FI9's comment more

Here's the thing though, for every one "lucky champion" you name, I can probably name 5-10 "deserving" champs. The BCS fails to put the right 2 teams together in the title game40-50% of the time. If you are the best team, you should be able to win the tournament. It's not a hard concept to follow. The playoffs is the best teams squaring off. Winning a tournament is just as hard as going undfeated and really harder. Going undefeated in the tournament against top notch competition provers more than going undefeated (or even losing) through an easy schedule.

 

[ACamp1900]

Here's the thing though, for every one "lucky champion" you name, I can probably name 5-10 "deserving" champs. The BCS fails to put the right 2 teams together in the title game40-50% of the time. If you are the best team, you should be able to win the tournament. It's not a hard concept to follow. The playoffs is the best teams squaring off. Winning a tournament is just as hard as going undfeated and really harder. Going undefeated in the tournament against top notch competition provers more than going undefeated (or even losing) through an easy schedule.

completely disagree... on each point...

 

[IrishRamMan10]

lol good one!