On one hand you have the concussion era, on the other you have an extra game.
I've never seen the need for a playoff. The BCS is wonky, but it is an collegiate sport that like most everything else has gotten away from what it really is, but what it really is is a money making juggernaut so what do I know.
Originally posted by BigDaddyLocoI've never seen the need for a playoff. The BCS is wonky, but it is an collegiate sport that like most everything else has gotten away from what it really is, but what it really is is a money making juggernaut so what do I know.
I'd be with you if we weren't talking about the ONLY sport and ANY level that doesn't have some sort of on-field competition to decide its champion. I don't have a problem with a top-four and any perceived injustice to the #5 team, because until the season comes when we have five undefeateds at the end of the year AND this format, every would-be #5 is going to have a loss that they can point to as why they didn't get in.
Holy fuck shit motherfucker shit. Read comics. Fuck shit shit fuck shit I sold out when I did my job. Fuck fuck fuck shit fuck. Sorry had to do it....
*snip*
Revenge of the Sith = one thumb up from me. Fuck shit. I want to tittie fuck your ass. -- The Guinness. to Cerebus
Originally posted by BigDaddyLocoI've never seen the need for a playoff. The BCS is wonky, but it is an collegiate sport that like most everything else has gotten away from what it really is, but what it really is is a money making juggernaut so what do I know.
I'd be with you if we weren't talking about the ONLY sport and ANY level that doesn't have some sort of on-field competition to decide its champion. I don't have a problem with a top-four and any perceived injustice to the #5 team, because until the season comes when we have five undefeateds at the end of the year AND this format, every would-be #5 is going to have a loss that they can point to as why they didn't get in.
Well, except for a Boise State-style team with a weak schedule. They could absolutely get excluded while being undefeated.
EDIT: Forget hypotheticals. It was only three seasons ago that there were 5 undefeateds at the end of the regular season, and the final BCS standings had 13-0 Boise ranked 6th, behind the other four undefeateds and one-loss Florida.
(edited by hansen9j on 21.6.12 0919) The Big Bossman raised the briefcase.
Go Pack Go! Owner of one (1) share. Let's Go Riders! Owner of one (1) share.
Originally posted by hansen9jEDIT: Forget hypotheticals. It was only three seasons ago that there were 5 undefeateds at the end of the regular season, and the final BCS standings had 13-0 Boise ranked 6th, behind the other four undefeateds and one-loss Florida.
That's why I included the words "AND this format". I'm pretty sure that's the only time since like 1940 (basing my statement on thinking Beano Cook said that, FWIW) that there have been five unbeatens at the end of a season. And besides, if there are five unbeatens they will surely use that as the impetus to expand to eight playoff teams, which is more than OK with me.
I think the fact that they have move from a scenario where a 2004 13-0 Auburn team gets left out to deciding (generally) which one-loss team gets favored over another is a good thing.
Holy fuck shit motherfucker shit. Read comics. Fuck shit shit fuck shit I sold out when I did my job. Fuck fuck fuck shit fuck. Sorry had to do it....
*snip*
Revenge of the Sith = one thumb up from me. Fuck shit. I want to tittie fuck your ass. -- The Guinness. to Cerebus
Four team playoff is better than no team playoff. I do see the need for playoffs and its only take them over a hundred years to figure it out. I look forward to an all SEC four team playoff with CBS and ESPN giving the excuse they only one lose between themselves minus their pathetic out of conference schedules.
The Wee Baby Sheamus.Twitter: @realjoecarfley its a bit more toned down there. A bit.
Re: alternating semi-finals at the big bowls. I wonder how the Rose Bowl feels about that. They've always had very little interest in anything other than the traditional Big Ten/Pac-10 matchup.
Originally posted by Mr. BoffoRe: alternating semi-finals at the big bowls. I wonder how the Rose Bowl feels about that. They've always had very little interest in anything other than the traditional Big Ten/Pac-10 matchup.
Andy Staples gave an interview where he kind of threw Larry Scott under the bus for suddenly going from Mr. Progressive Reformer Guy to "Don't Touch the Rose Bowl!". I don't know what the Rose Bowl would be afraid of since in the last ten years their three most exciting games have been Texas/Michigan, Texas/USC, and TCU/Wisconsin.
Originally posted by wmatisticThe "I told you so"'s will come probably within a year of implementation when the expansion talk starts.
They will talk of expanding because four teams isn't really enough to do a proper playoff, and when they see the TV ratings for the playoff "bowls" vs. the other exhibition bowls they will see that more playoff bowls will equal more $$$.
They don't start this format until the 2014 season. I would be stunned if - even if they are somehow controversy-free as far as picking teams goes - they aren't up to at least 12 teams by 2025.
Holy fuck shit motherfucker shit. Read comics. Fuck shit shit fuck shit I sold out when I did my job. Fuck fuck fuck shit fuck. Sorry had to do it....
*snip*
Revenge of the Sith = one thumb up from me. Fuck shit. I want to tittie fuck your ass. -- The Guinness. to Cerebus
Originally posted by JayJayDeanI'd be with you if we weren't talking about the ONLY sport and ANY level that doesn't have some sort of on-field competition to decide its champion.
I don't understand this. If using a poll to pick two teams to play a game - on the field - is not an on-field competition to decide the champion, then I don't see how using a poll to pick four teams to play three games - on the field - IS an on-field competition to decide the champion. If voters arbitrarily choosing two participants means the BCS title game is not an on-field determinant of the champion, then why is voters arbitrarily picking four participants suddenly totally valid?
The only way your criticism is suddenly no longer true is if there is a specific guideline for inclusion, something where teams can say if they achieve it they are definitely in, if they don't they are definitely out. No arbitrary judgments.
Here's what I just thought of, and I'm sure someone will point out some flaw because I just thought of it, but I'd like to see the implementation of something similar to the UEFA Champions League: Each year, all the FBS conferences are ranked by strength of schedule or RPI or some other "objective" formula (I know there are multiple interpretations of such rankings, the important thing is you just pick one and that's what is used permanently); the next year, participants of the playoff are the champions of the previous year's top four rated conferences.
If you expand - which I think has to be done for this so-called playoff to have any validity - you can make it the top six conferences' champs, and the runners up from the top two conferences. Or top eight conference champs and top four runners up. And so on.
I like this idea because in theory it allows for conferences to move up and down and does not permanently place any conferences above any others like the BCS does. I know in practice because of the flow of money and such it would largely cement the SEC, Big XII, et al, much like England and Spain are in no danger of losing their four Champions League spots, but that's already true of the BCS anyway, so at least this leaves SOME wiggle room.
Originally posted by wmatisticThe "I told you so"'s will come probably within a year of implementation when the expansion talk starts.
Your "I told you so" won't carry much weight, considering it seems to me like most proponents of a playoff WANT more than four teams.
Originally posted by JayJayDeanI'd be with you if we weren't talking about the ONLY sport and ANY level that doesn't have some sort of on-field competition to decide its champion.
I don't understand this. If using a poll to pick two teams to play a game - on the field - is not an on-field competition to decide the champion, then I don't see how using a poll to pick four teams to play three games - on the field - IS an on-field competition to decide the champion. If voters arbitrarily choosing two participants means the BCS title game is not an on-field determinant of the champion, then why is voters arbitrarily picking four participants suddenly totally valid?
This is a fair point. My intent wasn't to dismiss the validity of the BCS title game as "on-field competition"...it was in rebuttal to BDL's comment about "what college sports really (are)".
Originally posted by TheBucsFanHere's what I just thought of, and I'm sure someone will point out some flaw because I just thought of it, but I'd like to see the implementation of something similar to the UEFA Champions League: Each year, all the FBS conferences are ranked by strength of schedule or RPI or some other "objective" formula (I know there are multiple interpretations of such rankings, the important thing is you just pick one and that's what is used permanently); the next year, participants of the playoff are the champions of the previous year's top four rated conferences.
I would be in favor of this as long as there was an avenue for any of the teams 1-124 to get in at the beginning of the season. That's part of the reason I would've preferred they take only conference champions (with some sort of Notre Dame/Independents-provision to get in). I like having as little be left to personal choice as possible, and picking the best four out of a field of teams that had to meet a set criterion to qualify seems better to me than having a committee pick four teams.
Holy fuck shit motherfucker shit. Read comics. Fuck shit shit fuck shit I sold out when I did my job. Fuck fuck fuck shit fuck. Sorry had to do it....
*snip*
Revenge of the Sith = one thumb up from me. Fuck shit. I want to tittie fuck your ass. -- The Guinness. to Cerebus
Though of course my proposal will never actually happen. So a four-team "playoff" is better than nothing for now I guess.
And yeah, that's a fair point, the way I proposed it, only teams in certain conferences would have a chance each year. I don't know how to go with my proposal AND say team No. 124 actually has a theoretically possible chance at inclusion, without some kind of arbitrary judgments entering the picture.
Or why I shouldn't bet. Ryder Fakin: hey man...did you have chance to check out the NFL schedule? Guru Zim: not yet - did we get rewarded or screwed :-) / Guru Zim: (replace / with ? ) Guru Zim:
Thread rated: 5.93
#
#
