F
FleaFlicker
Guest
We are talking about CFB, at the least, a top 16 team would be 8-4.
But CFB needs a playoff right??
- Thread starter ACamp1900
- Start date
We are talking about CFB, at the least, a top 16 team would be 8-4.
F
Fighting_Irish9
Guest
There was plenty of reason for UF to jump Michigan....They beat a top 10 team and finished with a tougher schedule than Michigan.....
As for antagonistic....I simply used the same word play another poster used....guess that is against the rules now too
LOVEMYIRISH
old timer
- Messages
- 5,125
- Reaction score
- 409
Florida played a joke OOC schedule and they got in this year.
Auburn deserved that spot as much as OU did...or USC for that matter. In fact, Auburn's schedule was far better than USC's.
As for pretending about conferences, I am an ND grad and I hate conferences...
Auburn got hosed that year, the only reason USC and OU got the nods is that they started higher in the rankings...Auburn had to work its way up and thus had no chance of EVER getting in, no matter how tough their schedule was. A #1 ranked schedule STILL would have left them out of the NC game.
F
Fighting_Irish9
Guest
Yes we are talking Football, but Vince Young used a Basketball analogy....hence the basketball theme...
F
FleaFlicker
Guest
Hey smart guy, Florida played a D1AA school this year as well, and two weeks before the SEC championship game... lol
F
Fighting_Irish9
Guest
Yes UF did play a joke OOC schedule this year and they did get in, there weren't any teams really worthy of a NC this year.....it was a very down year for college football...as pathetic as their OOC was, it was still a tougher schedule than Michigan....
F
Fighting_Irish9
Guest
I'm well aware of this, and if there were 3 undefeateds, I'd say UF gets left out...however, there were a ton of 1 losses and all of them had pretty sad schedules
Vince Young
New member
- Messages
- 1,296
- Reaction score
- 64
Depends on why they were 17-15. Maybe their 2 best players were injured for the first month of the season. On a 12-man roster, missing 2 players can make a huge difference.
And to flip the question around, why should that 17-15 record completely negate what they pulled off in the tourney?
Believe me, I don't think a playoff is perfect, and I like a lot of the points you and ACamp are making. I'm a bowl guy myself. But I don't think a college football playoff would be an unmitigated disaster either. Seems to me that the NFL, NHL, MLB, the World Cup and NCAA basketball get along just fine with playoffs. If playoffs were such a sucky system, there'd be much more discontent in all those leagues.
As some have pointed out tongue-in-cheek, we already have a playoff in college football anyway: a 2-team playoff.
I prefer that to a 4-team playoff, but I also fail to see what would be so awful about a 4-team playoff.#1 Ohio State plays #4 LSU, #2 Florida plays #3 Michigan, and the two winners play each other for the title. OMFG THE REGULAR SEASON IS RUINED THE COUNTRY IS ENGULFED IN RIOTS CALL THE NATIONAL GUARD CALL THE UN OMFG IT IS ARMAGEDDON!!!!!1!
On the flip-side, I also fail to see how it was so disasterous that a Michigan team that got dismantled by USC along with a 2-loss LSU team got left out of a chance to play for the championship. Only the top 2 teams played. And somehow, the sun still rose the next day.
The amount of hyperbole on both sides of this debate is what usually keeps me out of this debate entirely.
S
solo
Guest
Not necessary if done correctly. You let in the 11 conference champs and 5 at large. If done this year, the Sun Belt champ would tbe the weak link at 7-5. Other than that, all 0-3loss teams.
F
FleaFlicker
Guest
See, now you are backtracking. If the difference between Auburn, OU, and USC was clear that year, and you can make fun of Auburn for playing that 1AA school, the why doesn't the same apply when we are looking at two teams with identical recrds, and 1 played a D1AA school?
Also, Michigan's only loss was to the undefeated No.1 team by 3 at home. Florida lost by 10 (though that last TD was a fluke) to a 2-loss team. The argument was... why did Florida only jump Michigan in that last poll, and not every other one before that, UM didn't play, so they were saying that the championship SEC game against Arkansas was enough to make people believe that FLorida was better than UM. It was a joke, plain an simple. Ark wasn't playing very well at the end of the year, and that game with Florida was pretty close.
Again, if there wouldn't have been the whole "rematch" scenario, Michigan would have been No. 2. I have no doubt in my mind.
LOVEMYIRISH
old timer
- Messages
- 5,125
- Reaction score
- 409
By the way, in 2004 Auburn DID have the tought SoS out of the 3 undefeated teams...so the two weaker teams got in.
Auburn was 5th, Oklahoma's schedule was ranked 11th, and USC's was 18th.
Last edited:
F
FleaFlicker
Guest
Depends on why they were 17-15. Maybe their 2 best players were injured for the first month of the season. On a 12-man roster, missing 2 players can make a huge difference.
And to flip the question around, why should that 17-15 record completely negate what they pulled off in the tourney?
Believe me, I don't think a playoff is perfect, and I like a lot of the points you and ACamp are making. I'm a bowl guy myself. But I don't think a college football playoff would be an unmitigated disaster either. Seems to me that the NFL, NHL, MLB, the World Cup and NCAA basketball get along just fine with playoffs. If playoffs were such a sucky system, there'd be much more discontent in all those leagues.
As some have pointed out tongue-in-cheek, we already have a playoff in college football anyway: a 2-team playoff.
#1 Ohio State plays #4 LSU, #2 Florida plays #3 Michigan, and the two winners play each other for the title. OMFG THE REGULAR SEASON IS RUINED THE COUNTRY IS ENGULFED IN RIOTS CALL THE NATIONAL GUARD CALL THE UN OMFG IT IS ARMAGEDDON!!!!!1!
On the flip-side, I also fail to see how it was so disasterous that a Michigan team that got dismantled by USC along with a 2-loss LSU team got left out of a chance to play for the championship. Only the top 2 teams played. And somehow, the sun still rose the next day.
The amount of hyperbole on both sides of this debate is what usually keeps me out of this debate entirely.
The main reason I think the 4-team playoff is needed is because of the No. 2 spot. Or the scenario when there are 3 teams that are nearly identical. It has happened, it will happen. When the top looks the same, it is unfair to exclude someone. Had Florida gotten blown out by OSU, and UM won against USC, everything would be in an uproar. It didn't work out that way, but before the bowl games, people easily saw how it could have. At that point, UM would have been neglected a shot (I know, I know, that had their shot) to play for the title)
F
Fighting_Irish9
Guest
What SOS are you using?
Vince Young
New member
- Messages
- 1,296
- Reaction score
- 64
...and somehow the sun still would've risen the next day.
I think I said something about hyperbole already, so I won't repeat myself.
F
Fighting_Irish9
Guest
Who cares if people are in an uproar....the BCS has crowned the team with the best season champion 100% of the time.....let them have their uproar
F
FleaFlicker
Guest
In terms of Auburn's case, how do we know they wouldn't have beaten USC that year? We don't. So there is no way we can know if they were the best season champion...
F
Fighting_Irish9
Guest
it doesn't matter if they could beat Auburn or not......college football isn't about who is the best team, its about who had the best season...
USC had a better season than Auburn...
LOVEMYIRISH
old timer
- Messages
- 5,125
- Reaction score
- 409
NCAA.ORG
F
FleaFlicker
Guest
Based on the SOS, I'd disagree, and it is NOT an unarguable fact, as you claim it to be.
LOVEMYIRISH
old timer
- Messages
- 5,125
- Reaction score
- 409
That's not true. Auburn went undefeated and had a tougher SoS.
S
solo
Guest
Please stop making this statement as it just isn't true. We need to only look back to 2004.
Can you absolutely say that USC's season was better than Auburn's?
Including the bowl game, USC went 13-0 beating 4 ranked teams. #3 OK, #9 Cal, #10 VT #19 Az St
Including the bowl game, Auburn went 13-0 beating 5 ranked teams. #7 GA, #10VT, #13 Tenn TWICE, and #16 LSU.
But you can conclusively say that USC had the better season, preserving the BCS 100% correct rating?
F
Fighting_Irish9
Guest
Yes because you aren't looking at the bottom's of their schedules there also....USC didn't play a D1AA team
F
Fighting_Irish9
Guest
That is what I figured....that is the Worst SOS out there...
Playing an 11-2 LSU is the same as playing an 11-2 Nevada....
Its based purely on inflated records, the best SOS is when you take into account your opponents record and your oponnents oponnents record
S
solo
Guest
And there is not at all any room for debate or any controversy over this? USC's 13-0 was better than Auburn's 13-0? What if Auburn had been given the shot to play #3 Oklahoma? Would that have tipped the scales Aubrun's way? Why can't you admit that you simply can't tell who had the better season? It's not cut and dry.
F
FleaFlicker
Guest
You've had some weak arguments, but this is your weakest. Scheduling 1 D1AA team does not suddenly make your entire season weak. ESPECIALLY when you beat more ranked teams then your opponent(USC in this case).
F
Fighting_Irish9
Guest
Because to me its cut and dry....The system is set up to have the 2 teams with the best seasons play each other and it works...
Now I admit I'm not a big fan of the New BCS with the Harris/Coaches/Computers...and was very worried they would screw up and put Michigan in the game when UF deserved it...
I don't have the confidence in this system that I did in the
SOS
QUality win
AP
Coaches
Computer
BCS System
F
Fighting_Irish9
Guest
My point isn't the D1AA alone (though I have ZERO SYMPATHY for anyone who does schedule a D1AA team)
The Bottom of the Auburn schedule and the bottom of the USC schedule puts USC over the top....this is why they were seeded #2....
Sure it was close, but the system got it righ, like they do every year
S
solo
Guest
That;s just it...it doesn't work because it can't. There is no accurate way to determine the team that had the 2nd best season from the 3rd best. We have had significant controversy as to who should be the 2nd team in the title game almost every year.
You see, the smaller your playoff, the more signficant the bubble teams become. And when you have a 2 team playoff, a bubble team might actually be the best team out there. You amke my point with your Florida-Michigan reference. The NC was ALMOST a bubble team and would have been a bubble team had the pollsters not had an agenda to avoid a rematch.
So it doesn't really work.
F
FleaFlicker
Guest
If you think that it has been clear-cut every year, and they always got it right, here is my opinion.
You either... A. Agree with the rankings after the fact, and then come up with all sorts of reasons to support them or...
B. Think that you are simply smarter and have more sound logic than every person who has been on the other side of the debate. I'm not calling you anything. But choice A labels youa liar, and choice B labels you as having delusions of grandeur.