But CFB needs a playoff right??

[Fighting_Irish9]

So instead, let's only invite 0 or 1 loss teams to our championshiop game whether they played a tough schedule or not. Louisville was about 1 minute from a title game. They would have made the championship game having only played 2 decent teams all year. If Louisville beats Rutgers, the title game is Louisville-OSU and the best team in the nation doesn't even get invited.

When have I ever said schedule didn't play a part...

The 2 best seasons includes toughness of schedule

Boise State did not have a to 2 season, and they went undefeated

 

[jiggafini19]

Both had the same conferance record (or better) than the team they beat out to get into the BCS....

So please explain how winning your conference is important, and since ND can never win a conference should they be banned from NC play?

The BCS has special provisions written into it for Notre Dame and you know that. So the fact that they aren't in a conference is irrelevant to the discussion. Those who play in conferences are.

You explain to me how you can be second in your own conference and first or second in America? Nebraska got shower raped against Colorado and didn't even play for the Big 12 title. Then they go to the Rose Bowl and get torched by Miami. Kansas State whips OU's asses a few years later and OU doesn't drop? They go to the title game and lose.

This is why the system is flawed. Big Ten and Pac 10 don't have nifty Dr Pepper Championship games to give them a second shot like Florida. Unless they get two unbeatens, each from a BCS conference, they will have problems and have to listen to people bitch. You're naive if you think these decisions are being made because of what happens on the field.

If you won't have a playoff tournament, and they won't, at least make it a little more equitable.

 

[FleaFlicker]

I'm not sure I agree with FI9 in his last post with the whole one loss asterisk thing, but I do feel a BCS like system only allows teams that have been elite in both the reg. season and post season to win the Natioanl Championship... playoff systems simply don't do that

You need to amend that statement. This all has to do with what people crown an "elite" season. Again... why isn't top 8 considered elite? It is roughly 7% of Div1A FB programs.

That is much more elite than any other playoff round in any pro sport.

7% is basically like the Wolrd Series if you just took the best team from each league and put them straight into it after the regular season.

There are 30 teams in MLB. 2 Teams our of 30 is 6.666%. Just because we have a larger sample size, doesn't mean those teams wouldn't be considered elite in my book.

 

[solo]

I'm not sure I agree with FI9 in his last post with the whole one loss asterisk thing, but I do feel a BCS like system only allows teams that have been elite in both the reg. season and post season to win the Natioanl Championship... playoff systems simply don't do that

It's defining "elite" that is the slippery slope. Are you elite if you win all your games but only play one or 2 tough teams? Is that team more elite than a team that loses one, but beats 3 tough teams?

I think that if you did better than 95% of the other teams, you were among the elite. So the top 6 out of 119 is an elite group. Even finishing the season in the top 10 is quite an accomplishment.

 

[ACamp1900]

You need to amend that statement. This all has to do with what people crown an "elite" season. Again... why isn't top 8 considered elite? It is roughly 7% of Div1A FB programs.

That is much more elite than any other playoff round in any pro sport.

7% is basically like the Wolrd Series if you just took the best team from each league and put them straight into it after the regular season.

There are 30 teams in MLB. 2 Teams our of 30 is 6.666%. Just because we have a larger sample size, doesn't mean those teams wouldn't be considered elite in my book.

It's defining "elite" that is the slippery slope. Are you elite if you win all your games but only play one or 2 tough teams? Is that team more elite than a team that loses one, but beats 3 tough teams?

I think that if you did better than 95% of the other teams, you were among the elite. So the top 6 out of 119 is an elite group. Even finishing the season in the top 10 is quite an accomplishment.

Again, would a plus one not satisfy your issues???

 

[solo]

I have seen posts where people quote more than one post inside their post.

How do you do this?

 

[FleaFlicker]

Again, would a plus one not satisfy your issues???

It would be better, yes. I'd say it'd satisfy them... not that that holds any weight. But I'd prefer an 8 team simply because it keep the season exciting and more potential is there for every team to win the Championship, up until the end. I know there were points this year where I was completely uninterested in any other team, because I knew they were out of the race.

 

[ACamp1900]

I have seen posts where people quote more than one post inside their post.

How do you do this?

the "yellow" quote button next to the reg one... hit that first for the first quote, then hit the blue quote to start your response on another one... I do believe you can quote more than two if you wanted too.. anyway, try it out, test it here as a matter of fact

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

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!

4 team playoff...simple elegant and better than the BCS.

 

[FleaFlicker]

I have seen posts where people quote more than one post inside their post.

How do you do this?

Just use quote tags.

Put

(no space) in front of their post, and [/QUOTE ] (no space) after it.

 

[ACamp1900]

It would be better, yes. I'd say it'd satisfy them... not that that holds any weight. But I'd prefer an 8 team simply because it keep the season exciting and more potential is there for every team to win the Championship, up until the end. I know there were points this year where I was completely uninterested in any other team, because I knew they were out of the race.

I'd say...


























BAH!!!!! lol

 

[ACamp1900]

4 team playoff...simple elegant and better than the BCS.

maybe, but the playoff thumpers would use it as a stepping stone to one day having a 32 team "January Madness" and there by ruining cfb the same way they ruined cbb

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

maybe, but the playoff thumpers would use it as a stepping stone to one day having a 32 team "January Madness" and there by ruining cfb the same way they ruined cbb

Slippery slope arguments are no reason to avoid it...it's a strawman that you are using, it's not worth fearing. There is a problem now and it should be fixed.

 

[Fighting_Irish9]

It would be better, yes. I'd say it'd satisfy them... not that that holds any weight. But I'd prefer an 8 team simply because it keep the season exciting and more potential is there for every team to win the Championship, up until the end. I know there were points this year where I was completely uninterested in any other team, because I knew they were out of the race.

How does allowing a team to lose 2 games keep things exciting...

What makes the games in CFB so exciting is you can't lose....if you allow them to lose 2 games....where is the excitement It would be like watching the NFL...

 

[ACamp1900]

Slippery slope arguments are no reason to avoid it...it's a strawman that you are using, it's not worth fearing. There is a problem now and it should be fixed.

there's been Ad Homonym’s and apple polishing and everything thrown my way during this thread... lol

and there is a problem with playoffs in every sport that should be fixed... I think it's fair to say there is no perfect anwser...

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

How does allowing a team to lose 2 games keep things exciting...

What makes the games in CFB so exciting is you can't lose....if you allow them to lose 2 games....where is the excitement It would be like watching the NFL...

It depends. I agree that 2 losses seems a bit much. But if it's limited to the Top4 teams, it would not be so bad. If you go past the Top4, you are bringing in second level teams...teams that DO NOT deserve a shot.

Realistically you want the top2 to play. However, by extending the playoff to the top4, there is no chance of missing the "real #2 team". Thus the #4 team is LUCKY to get in...anyone below #4 can suck it.

Any team saying "we are the real #4..." can suck it.

 

[solo]

Again, would a plus one not satisfy your issues???

We had a chance to do a plus one this year. They added a 5th BCS game. But rather than do it right way, they just decided to let 2 more teams earn BCS money. You see, the BCS is just all about the money.

A plus one is a pretty good compromise. Probably something I could live with that would work most years, maybe.

But a plus one still has the same probalems as we have today, just pushed back a week. Let's apply the plus one to this season.

Does USC play Florida? Does LSU play Florida? What about Louisville and Wisconsin? Does Bosie State fit in the mix? I think a plus one would have failed this season but might work in many seasons. If parity continues to be an issue as it was this season, a plus one doesn't solve anything.

 

[ACamp1900]

It depends. I agree that 2 losses seems a bit much. But if it's limited to the Top4 teams, it would not be so bad. If you go past the Top4, you are bringing in second level teams...teams that DO NOT deserve a shot.

Realistically you want the top2 to play. However, by extending the playoff to the top4, there is no chance of missing the "real #2 team". Thus the #4 team is LUCKY to get in...anyone below #4 can suck it.

Any team saying "we are the real #4..." can suck it.

well as I have stated the only playoff I would stand by... in ANY sport... is a four team as the NFl had for years in the 60's and 70's.... I still think a plus one is the best option for cfb though

 

[FleaFlicker]

How does allowing a team to lose 2 games keep things exciting...

What makes the games in CFB so exciting is you can't lose....if you allow them to lose 2 games....where is the excitement It would be like watching the NFL...

This is where it is important to remember that two people can have very differing opinions, and both can be valid. I just simply don't agree that is makes things less exciting. First of all, your rank would determine who you played in the next round. This year, that could mean the UM vs. OSU game winner was going to play Louisville (or someone) and the loser was going to play USC. I'd sure tune it to see what would happen. I prefer to think of how this would effect the whole of CFB, not just the 5-6 teams that have a shot of getting to be #1 each year. And I personally just see it as more exciting if 8 teams end up having some sort of shot at the title. 4 would satisfy me, but I'd prefer 8.

 

[ACamp1900]

We had a chance to do a plus one this year. They added a 5th BCS game. But rather than do it right way, they just decided to let 2 more teams earn BCS money. You see, the BCS is just all about the money.

A plus one is a pretty good compromise. Probably something I could live with that would work most years, maybe.

But a plus one still has the same probalems as we have today, just pushed back a week. Let's apply the plus one to this season.

Does USC play Florida? Does LSU play Florida? What about Louisville and Wisconsin? Does Bosie State fit in the mix? I think a plus one would have failed this season but might work in many seasons. If parity continues to be an issue as it was this season, a plus one doesn't solve anything.

nor does a playoff... of any amount when trying to decide the best team all year, reg season and post season...

 

[FleaFlicker]

It depends. I agree that 2 losses seems a bit much. But if it's limited to the Top4 teams, it would not be so bad. If you go past the Top4, you are bringing in second level teams...teams that DO NOT deserve a shot.

Realistically you want the top2 to play. However, by extending the playoff to the top4, there is no chance of missing the "real #2 team". Thus the #4 team is LUCKY to get in...anyone below #4 can suck it.

Any team saying "we are the real #4..." can suck it.

Yeah, the benefit to 4 is that it does include the No.2 team somewhere, even if they are #3 or #4. While at the same time cutting it off from average to slightly above average teams.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Yeah, the benefit to 4 is that it does include the No.2 team somewhere, even if they are #3 or #4. While at the same time cutting it off from average to slightly above average teams.

Yup...you are right on.

 

[solo]

ACAMP...You are advocating the Bowl System and might possibly support the bowl sytem plus one.

So tell me...if we had the plus one this year, who would be in the title game and why?

 

[Fighting_Irish9]

Yeah, the benefit to 4 is that it does include the No.2 team somewhere, even if they are #3 or #4. While at the same time cutting it off from average to slightly above average teams.

The real #2....is the #2 team....end of story..

#3 and #4 can suck it

 

[Vince Young]

I prefer the bowl system in college football to a playoff, but I have to play devil's advocate with one of ACamp's repeated points... he loves to point out that the Cardinals and the Steelers had mediocre regular seasons last year but went on to win their respective championships, and he finds fault with this.

Well, let's take the most ludicrous possible playoff scenario of all: a 16-seed winning the NCAA tourney. ACamp would probably have a heart attack if this happened. But look at what that 16-seed would have to do in order to win it all. They'd most-likely have to beat the #1, #8, #4 and #2 teams in their own bracket, then defeat a team that won their bracket, then defeat one last team that not only won their bracket but also defeated another team that won their bracket.

Whew!

That's difficult to do, and only a damn good team can pull that off. No amount of luck will get you through a 6-game stretch of that difficulty.

Last year's 83-78 Cardinals team had to beat 88-74 San Diego, the 97-65 New York Mets, and the 95-67 Detroit Tigers, and they had to beat them all 4 times each. That's not easy.

Last year's Steelers were the bottom-seed in the playoffs, sure, but they were 11-5, tied for the lead in their division, and had a better record than division-winning 10-6 New England. Division winners Cincinnati, Chicago and Tampa Bay and wild-card Carolina also all had 11-5 records. So the Steelers weren't exactly chopped-liver surrounded by a filet mignon spread. The Steelers than went on to defeat the 11-5 Bengals in Cincinnati, the league-best 14-2 Colts in Indianapolis, the 13-3 Broncos in Denver, and then the 13-3 Seattle Seahawks in the Super Bowl. That's also not easy.

Again, I prefer the bowl system for college football. But I can't really agree that a playoff is "bad" per se just because a bottom-seed with a lackluster regular season can win it all. They still have to perform in the end. They still have to win. They still have to do something to earn it. Nothing gets handed to them.

I think I could get behind a 4-team playoff. And fuck conference championships. Louisville and Wake Forest won their conferences this year, but Michigan and LSU didn't. Big whoop. Does anyone here think that Michigan or LSU wouldn't mop the floor with those two "conference champions"?

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

The real #2....is the #2 team....end of story..

#3 and #4 can suck it

#2 will always be contentious since the Coaches Bowl has tremendous regional/conferece bias. So the #2 will rarely be the #2. Also, in years where teams like Auburn go undefeated in the SEC and get left out, the true #2 will never be clear.

 

[Fighting_Irish9]

Well, let's take the most ludicrous possible playoff scenario of all: a 16-seed winning the NCAA tourney. ACamp would probably have a heart attack if this happened. But look at what that 16-seed would have to do in order to win it all. They'd most-likely have to beat the #1, #8, #4 and #2 teams in their own bracket, then defeat a team that won their bracket, then defeat one last team that not only won their bracket but also defeated another team that won their bracket.

I don't agree with this at all, most likely they would have to beat a #1, #8 #12 #4 #3

It would be a nice run but would it make up for the 17-15 season they had.....Not imo...

PLayoffs aren't about the best team...they are about who had the best tournament by getting the best matchups....

CFB isn't about who is the best team, but who had the overall best season...

I prefer the second

 

[Fighting_Irish9]

#2 will always be contentious since the Coaches Bowl has tremendous regional/conferece bias. So the #2 will rarely be the #2. Also, in years where teams like Auburn go undefeated in the SEC and get left out, the true #2 will never be clear.

The #2 was very clear that year, Auburn played a joke of an OOC including a D1AA team....they can suck it...man up and play someone, stop pretending like your conference is an excuse to play the crap OOC they do...

Auburn was the True #3 that is why they were ranked #3

 

[FleaFlicker]

The real #2....is the #2 team....end of story..

#3 and #4 can suck it

See.... you make good points in some threads, and then you say dumb stuff like that. There wasn't much of a reason for Florida to jump ahead of Michigan at the time that they did. It proved it was probably the right move, but if there wouldn't have been a rematch scenario between OSU and UM, UM wouldn't have lost that 2nd spot. Please stop being so antagonistic (probably spelled that wrong).

 

[solo]

Well, let's take the most ludicrous possible playoff scenario of all: a 16-seed winning the NCAA tourney. ACamp would probably have a heart attack if this happened. But look at what that 16-seed would have to do in order to win it all. They'd most-likely have to beat the #1, #8, #4 and #2 teams in their own bracket, then defeat a team that won their bracket, then defeat one last team that not only won their bracket but also defeated another team that won their bracket.

I don't agree with this at all, most likely they would have to beat a #1, #8 #12 #4 #3

It would be a nice run but would it make up for the 17-15 season they had.....Not imo...

PLayoffs aren't about the best team...they are about who had the best tournament by getting the best matchups....

CFB isn't about who is the best team, but who had the overall best season...

I prefer the second

I think of it differently.

Playoffs put the best teams in the tournament. Then crown the team that had the best of tournament.

BCS is about trying to pair up the 2 teams that had the 2 best seasons from a very cloudy pool of candidates.

I prefer the former.