06 Jan 10
Originally posted by no1marauderBut yet you agree that preconceptions and biases that experts have about the quality of
It might shock you, but just because some sportswriters and coaches think a team is the 22nd best in the country doesn't mean it is. Given that the great majority of games are conference ones the rankings during the season are guesswork colored by pre-conceptions and biases.
The idea that a team can finish behind another team in a league b ...[text shortened]... m; if that 22nd ranked team is really inferior, we'll find out where it matters: on the field.
conferences (before games are even played!) is somehow okay. You are suggesting
that the Big 6 conferences get automatic bids into your playoff system, because they
are the "Big 6" and nothing else.
I understand, you like the conference format. Really, I understand. You are not alone.
You and I simply disagree about the fairness and importance placed on conferences.
06 Jan 10
Originally posted by darvlayYes, you did miss it. It was fabulous.
And did I miss the Bed Bath and Beyond Champions Warrior Bowl because I don't see it on the BCS schedule.
The cornerbacks covered the receivers with these stylish and sophisticated duvet covers [http://www.bedbathandbeyond.com/product.asp?order_num=-1&SKU=121444&RN=26]
that spun the crowd into a frenzy and the linebackers cleaned up on defense with the new Dyson DC28 Upright Vacuums [http://www.bedbathandbeyond.com/product.asp?order_num=-1&SKU=119033&RN=914].
But it wasn't just a defensive match, the opposing quarterback did have moments when he was as sharp as a knife [http://www.bedbathandbeyond.com/product.asp?order_num=-1&SKU=10157307&RN=965].
But in the end, it was the 368 pound lineman who tipped the waist-level BMI medical scale [http://www.bedbathandbeyond.com/product.asp?order_num=-1&SKU=16557196&RN=444] in his team's favor.
The sad part of it all was that Texas Tech wasn't playing -- because if they were, I'm sure Adam Jones wouldn't have minded one bit if he had been locked in a closet with this state-of-the-art
closet system kit [http://www.bedbathandbeyond.com/product.asp?order_num=-1&SKU=15944072&RN=1006], and their coach might still have a job.
06 Jan 10
Originally posted by Traveling AgainWell played, Sir.
Yes, you did miss it. It was fabulous.
The cornerbacks covered the receivers with these stylish and sophisticated duvet covers [http://www.bedbathandbeyond.com/product.asp?order_num=-1&SKU=121444&RN=26]
that spun the crowd into a frenzy and the linebackers cleaned up on defense with the new Dyson DC28 Upright Vacuums [http://www.bed ...[text shortened]... product.asp?order_num=-1&SKU=15944072&RN=1006], and their coach might still have a job.
07 Jan 10
Originally posted by no1marauderThe idea that the winner of the SEC and the winner of the Mountain West have the same chance of winning a championship is just ridiculous. I would rather there be more incentive for strong conferences and strong out of conference games (like mandate that each team in a top 6 conference play at least one out of conference game against another top 6 conference team). I also would reward teams who play tough games. i would use the first tie breaker for any bowl game selections as strength of schedule (not head to head or common match ups). When top teams play tough schedules no outsider can credibly claim they are just as good.
It might shock you, but just because some sportswriters and coaches think a team is the 22nd best in the country doesn't mean it is. Given that the great majority of games are conference ones the rankings during the season are guesswork colored by pre-conceptions and biases.
The idea that a team can finish behind another team in a league b ...[text shortened]... m; if that 22nd ranked team is really inferior, we'll find out where it matters: on the field.
07 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by quackquackWhy, because you say so? The winner of the Mountain West last year thrashed the SEC runner up which had lost a squeaker in the SEC Championship Game.
The idea that the winner of the SEC and the winner of the Mountain West have the same chance of winning a championship is just ridiculous. I would rather there be more incentive for strong conferences and strong out of conference games (like mandate that each team in a top 6 conference play at least one out of conference game against another top 6 confer ...[text shortened]... ups). When top teams play tough schedules no outsider can credibly claim they are just as good.
In any event, the Mountain West wouldn't have an automatic bid under my system. If the mid majors were soooooooooooooo inferior, they'd be easy meat for the BCS Conference Champions in the quarterfinals.
EDIT: Most of the "top teams" i.e. the BCS Conference ones play creampuff out of conference schedules.
07 Jan 10
Originally posted by no1marauderI agree with you about tree things (1) the out of conference schedules are becoming a joke for most teams and I think teams that want to play in top bowl games should be required to have tough schedules (2) if we have a playoff system conferences are virtually meaningless. (3) many teams just want a playoff so that when they lose they can have another chance to play well at a later time.
Why, because you say so? The winner of the Mountain West last year thrashed the SEC runner up which had lost a squeaker in the SEC Championship Game.
In any event, the Mountain West wouldn't have an automatic bid under my system. If the mid majors were soooooooooooooo inferior, they'd be easy meat for the BCS Conference Champions in the quar ...[text shortened]... of the "top teams" i.e. the BCS Conference ones play creampuff out of conference schedules.
I would however, preserve the conference and skip a playoff. I don't want to hear how the Sunbelt winner or MAC winner deserves a chance to play and I don't think that it is fair to the second place team in a top conferene (this year Florida) to be excluded because they played better teams than some conference winner. TCU and Boise end up playing each other (the game was terrible) but if you are a big fan of those teams you got your bowl game.
07 Jan 10
Originally posted by quackquackI don't agree with (2) at all.
I agree with you about tree things (1) the out of conference schedules are becoming a joke for most teams and I think teams that want to play in top bowl games should be required to have tough schedules (2) if we have a playoff system conferences are virtually meaningless. (3) many teams just want a playoff so that when they lose they can have another ch ...[text shortened]... other (the game was terrible) but if you are a big fan of those teams you got your bowl game.
Leaving the championship of college football up to the subjective judgments of sportswriters and coaches - the ones who really decide who gets into the Championship Game - makes the the whole exercise a farce. If there was a badly needed playoff and who got in was decided as much as practicable by objective factors it would be a boon to the game.
There's little recent evidence that top mid-majors wouldn't have a shot against BCS Conference Champions. If my system had been in effect this year, the 8 teams who would have made the playoff would have been 1-9 in the BCS rankings with only Florida excluded and it would be a travesty to include the Gators after they had been crushed by Alabama in the SEC Championship Game.
The season would have only been extended by one week and we'd have beyond question and any reasoned doubt a legitimate national champion who had earned it on the field against the best competition rather than in the minds of biased sportswriters and coaches. If a mid-major could beat in successive weeks, three BCS Conference Champions it would certainly deserve to be called the National Champion.
07 Jan 10
If you have an eight team playoff and don't include Florida than the playoff just a joke to give mid majors a shot they simply do not deserve. There is no reason why top conference such as the SEC with Alabama, Florida, LSU etc all compete for one spot in a playoff when Boise is in a conference with teams that all have five or more losses. Let Boise yell that they are much better than Nevada, Fresno and Idaho but don't tell me they merit a shot at any championship
07 Jan 10
2 edits
Originally posted by quackquackObviously you haven't bothered to pay attention to the bowl results of the last few years when mid-majors like Boise State and Utah have been beating your "super" conferences champions. Florida is #2 in their conference; how can they possibly be #1 in the country? As I said if the 2 mid-majors or independent teams are so weak, your super conference champions would have an easy first round game. But basically you're full of crap; you know as well as I do they wouldn't and only your fan bias prevents you from admitting that obvious fact.
If you have an eight team playoff and don't include Florida than the playoff just a joke to give mid majors a shot they simply do not deserve. There is no reason why top conference such as the SEC with Alabama, Florida, LSU etc all compete for one spot in a playoff when Boise is in a conference with teams that all have five or more losses. Let Boise ye ...[text shortened]... h better than Nevada, Fresno and Idaho but don't tell me they merit a shot at any championship
This year even with the big conference bias of sportswriters and coaches, TCU wound up #4 in the BCS standings and Boise State #6. On what possible grounds could either be denied a shot in an 8 team playoff? Because you are poorly informed and biased against the mid majors?
EDIT: You probably didn't pay enough attention to the college football season to know that Boise State defeated Pac-10 champion Oregon and TCU defeated ACC runner-up Clemson on the road. Nah, they wouldn't stand a chance against the powerhouses in the BCS Conferences!
07 Jan 10
Originally posted by no1marauderI understand this reasoning, and I see the logic to it, but wouldn't this logic make a playoff
...the 8 teams who would have made the playoff would have been 1-9 in the BCS rankings with only Florida excluded and it would be a travesty to include the Gators after they had been crushed by Alabama in the SEC Championship Game.
pointless?
Based on your system, Ohio State would make the playoff this year as the Big-10 champ --
even though they lost to USC (which didn't even win the PAC-10 this year) and lowly Purdue.
Oregon would make it in as the PAC-10 champ - even though they already lost to another
playoff team, the WAC champs Boise State. Georgia Tech would make it in - even though they
lost to Miami and Georgia (neither of who won their conference).
I know we differ on this, but I'd still like to hear your response:
Why is it such a great travesty that Florida be allowed in the playoff this year, but it would be
okay to allow Ohio State? Florida's only loss of the year was to the undefeated, #1 team in
the country -- and you say they shouldn't get in. Yet let Ohio State in? Ohio State's two
losses were to a 4-loss USC team and 7-loss Purdue team!
If head to head match-ups (like your Florida vs. Alabama argument) hold any weight to
determine who gets in the playoffs, then the PAC-10 champ wouldn't make it this year
because they lost to the WAC champ.
And if a single loss by Florida to the #1 team in the nation is "proof" that they don't deserve a
chance, then why isn't ANY loss the same proof? This year, only Texas, Alabama, and
Cincinnati would be the automatic entries entering the playoff without a blemish on their
record. So what's the point of a playoff if a team must be "perfect"? Some years we wouldn't
even have a playoff because every team had at least one loss and it would be a travesty to let
them in.
But you say it would be okay for Ohio State to be in the playoffs this year for the simple fact
that they won their conference -- their "super" conference. Doesn't this demonstrate a
superpower conference bias (that you are trying to argue against in other posts)?
So how can we get a fair playoff without conference bias? Maybe it's just not possible. With
so many teams and so few games to be played, we can't see everyone play against everyone
and rank them accordingly. Which, makes shortcircuit's random league's idea so interesting.
It would never happen, of course, but it's the fairest thing I've seen so far. But, I recognize
that with all the money that conferences (especially the big 6) bring in, "fair" isn't their top
priority.
I realize this is a never ending debate. And mostly I'm just having some good-natured fun
poking holes in your argument because you seem so convinced it's foolproof. If you were to
say "I know my idea isn't perfect, but it has some benefits" then I wouldn't be having as much
fun as I am now. You just seem so darn adamant. 😉
07 Jan 10
Originally posted by no1marauderYou just want to have a playoff, include mid majors and ignore all facts that show that is a bad idea. Why would under your system Florida and Alabama want to be in the same conference? Why would anyone want to be in the same conference as another good team? They simply would not.
Obviously you haven't bothered to pay attention to the bowl results of the last few years when mid-majors like Boise State and Utah have been beating your "super" conferences champions. Florida is #2 in their conference; how can they possibly be #1 in the country? As I said if the 2 mid-majors or independent teams are so weak, your super conference champ ...[text shortened]... e road. Nah, they wouldn't stand a chance against the powerhouses in the BCS Conferences!
You do not care who teams play at all as long as midmajors get to play in your stupid fictional nation championship tournament. The simple fact is Alabama plays in the toughest conference, they already beat the toughest team of any of the other undefeated they then play the toughest remaining team in a bowl game. They simply don't have to go through your dumb equal access tournament to prove anything. Beating Oregon is impressive but Ohio State just did the same thing. TCU beat FIVE loss Clemson so they should play for a nation championship? You have to be joking! If that is there best win (plus they lost to Bosie anyway) it is enough of a reason to exclude them.
07 Jan 10
Originally posted by quackquackI agree with you -- why even have a playoff if Alabama has proved so much this year already?
You just want to have a playoff, include mid majors and ignore all facts that show that is a bad idea. Why would under your system Florida and Alabama want to be in the same conference? Why would anyone want to be in the same conference as another good team? They simply would not.
You do not care who teams play at all as long as midmajors get to p ...[text shortened]... at is there best win (plus they lost to Bosie anyway) it is enough of a reason to exclude them.
In my opinion, the greatest appeal to a playoff (in any sport) is that all teams who played "good
enough" to make the playoffs have a final shot at being the champion. That's what's so great
about the NCAA tournament (Villanova beat Georgetown!!), that's what's so great about the NFL
playoffs (the Giants beat the undefeated Patriots!!), that's what's so great about the MLB playoffs
(The D-Backs beat the Yankees!!).
I say be less restrictive of who gets in the playoffs, and then let the fun begin. Would I want
to see a 3-loss team (from any conference) make it through the playoffs to face off against an
undefeated powerhouse? Sure I would, I like Cinderella and David v. Goliath stories, and
college football (with all the great things it does have) just doesn't have a good system in
place for these stories to happen.
08 Jan 10
Originally posted by Traveling AgainAlabama hasn't "proved" that they could beat Boise State except in your biased minds. The same "logic" "proved" last year that Utah didn't have a chance against the Crimson Tide in their bowl game.
I agree with you -- why even have a playoff if Alabama has proved so much this year already?
In my opinion, the greatest appeal to a playoff (in any sport) is that all teams who played "good
enough" to make the playoffs have a final shot at being the champion. That's what's so great
about the NCAA tournament (Villanova beat Georgetown!!), tha ...[text shortened]... s it does have) just doesn't have a good system in
place for these stories to happen.
You've failed to poke ANY holes in the argument for a playoff. The SEC has a champion; to allow the runner up to compete on an even basis in a playoff makes a mockery of the regular season and their league championship game. But just because the SEC has a champion doesn't "prove" that this champion is superior to the champion of the ACC (for example) no matter how many games that team lost. The leagues are separate entities who's teams play the vast majority of their games against each other. Comparative ratings between the conferences are nothing but educated guesses subject to personal biases (like QQ spews forth). There's only one way to decide which team is the best; on the field. And a playoff where participation is based on an objective factor (i.e. you won your conference) is far fairer than one based on a subjective one (i.e. sportswriters and coaches think you're the best).
08 Jan 10
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderBut Boise State "proved" they beat Oregon, yet you'd still let Oregon in your playoff simply because they were the top team in the PAC-10. 🙄
Alabama hasn't "proved" that they could beat Boise State except in your biased minds. The same "logic" "proved" last year that Utah didn't have a chance against the Crimson Tide in their bowl game.
You've failed to poke ANY holes in the argument for a playoff. The SEC has a champion; to allow the runner up to compete on an even basis in a based on a subjective one (i.e. sportswriters and coaches think you're the best).
edit: I AM arguing for a playoff. Just not one as biased as yours.