31 Oct 11
Originally posted by shortcircuitThat would be ridiculous. Who are the "best teams" is a subjective judgment except for the final score. If one team has already beaten another, they are the better team - a rematch when there are other deserving teams would make the Championship Game an even bigger fraud than it is now.
They may not "want" them, but if the two best teams happen to have played once already,
it shouldn't prohibit them from setting up a re-match.
A few years ago, Michigan and Ohio State were #1 and #2 when they played each other late in the season. It was a close game and OSU prevailed. This board was filled with posters insisting that they should play in a rematch in the BCS Championship because they were so clearly the "best teams". Thankfully the BCS didn't go along; both got smashed in their BCS bowl game. More recently Florida prevailed over Alabama in a terrific SEC title game and it sure looked like they were the "best teams". But Utah crushed Bama in a bowl.
A rematch would be a mockery of a sham.
31 Oct 11
Originally posted by no1marauderOH get down off of your high horse.
That would be ridiculous. Who are the "best teams" is a subjective judgment except for the final score. If one team has already beaten another, they are the better team - a rematch when there are other deserving teams would make the Championship Game an even bigger fraud than it is now.
A few years ago, Michigan and Ohio State were #1 and ...[text shortened]... But Utah crushed Bama in a bowl.
A rematch would be a mockery of a sham.
Who the hell says the best teams are unbeaten?
You can lose on a bad call (ala Texas vs Texas Tech a couple years ago) costing you
a shot at the national championship. However, the pollsters thought that OU who (also
had only one loss) was the better team for the NCG, even though UT beat them during
the regular season.
This season, I think Andrew Luck is the best player out there, but I think Alabama and
LSU may be the best two teams. You are correct that is subjective, but so are ALL of
the polls, and they always have been.
The computerized model is a joke as well, but at least it's choices are not based
on emotion or support base.
31 Oct 11
Originally posted by shortcircuitNaturally I'd prefer a playoff system. But with the way things are allowing two teams to play in a rematch would make the whole season a waste. It's very possible that Alabama and LSU are the best teams (they sure look like it) but they'll have a chance to settle who is better on Saturday. And the final score is what matters not crying about lucky bounces or ref's calls.
OH get down off of your high horse.
Who the hell says the best teams are unbeaten?
You can lose on a bad call (ala Texas vs Texas Tech a couple years ago) costing you
a shot at the national championship. However, the pollsters thought that OU who (also
had only one loss) was the better team for the NCG, even though UT beat them during
the regul ...[text shortened]... d model is a joke as well, but at least it's choices are not based
on emotion or support base.
Once they've played that should be it; the loser shouldn't get a "do over" for the National Championship.
31 Oct 11
Originally posted by no1marauderWell, if you had your playoff system, it could very easily produce your "do over" scenario.
Naturally I'd prefer a playoff system. But with the way things are allowing two teams to play in a rematch would make the whole season a waste. It's very possible that Alabama and LSU are the best teams (they sure look like it) but they'll have a chance to settle who is better on Saturday. And the final score is what matters not crying about lucky bounce ...[text shortened]... ed that should be it; the loser shouldn't get a "do over" for the National Championship.
So, why not here? If you want it to be a "true" championship game, then put the
two best teams in there, regardless of whether they played during the season or not.
31 Oct 11
Originally posted by shortcircuitNot in my playoff system which would have the champions of the 6 BCS conferences and two mid-major/independents.
Well, if you had your playoff system, it could very easily produce your "do over" scenario.
So, why not here? If you want it to be a "true" championship game, then put the
two best teams in there, regardless of whether they played during the season or not.
If two teams have already played, you've already decided on the field that one of them is better. Given the limited number of games in college football and the large number of teams, giving rematches instead of allowing other teams to get their shot is unfair. There's only one way to decide who the "best" team is and letting the same teams play twice isn't one of them. If LSU wins the first and Bama the second, who's the "best" team? Should they play a third?
31 Oct 11
Lane Kiffin is doing some crying. http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/ncf/story/_/id/7172604/usc-trojans-lane-kiffin-maintains-was-deceived-pac-12-officials
Is there any provision for calling a conditional time out? So what if Kiffin told the ref he wanted a time out AFTER the play BEFORE the play was run; doesn't he have to request one AFTER the play?
31 Oct 11
Originally posted by no1marauderSo, it there are three deserving independents and mid majors, one gets bumped because
Not in my playoff system which would have the champions of the 6 BCS conferences and two mid-major/independents.
If two teams have already played, you've already decided on the field that one of them is better. Given the limited number of games in college football and the large number of teams, giving rematches instead of allowing other ...[text shortened]... LSU wins the first and Bama the second, who's the "best" team? Should they play a third?
a potentially weaker team who won a BCS conference title is automatic.
That is as big a crock as saying two teams from the same conference can't be among
the best 8 schools in the country.
Also, what if the two teams from the same conference did not play each other that
season because of division splits?
Not the best there either.
Take the top 8 teams....regardless of affiliation. NO automatic bids.
31 Oct 11
Originally posted by shortcircuitIt's up to the conferences to decide how to crown their champions.
So, it there are three deserving independents and mid majors, one gets bumped because
a potentially weaker team who won a BCS conference title is automatic.
That is as big a crock as saying two teams from the same conference can't be among
the best 8 schools in the country.
Also, what if the two teams from the same conference did not play each o ...[text shortened]... the best there either.
Take the top 8 teams....regardless of affiliation. NO automatic bids.
There's no perfect system, but the one I proposed would accept the present reality that no changes are going to be accepted by the BCS conferences that strips their champion of an automatic bid. If they are really undeserving, they'd lose in the quarter-finals.
Whether a team is IYO one of the top 8 shouldn't matter; if they can't win their conference they are not better than another team in their conference. They shouldn't get a second bite of the apple.
31 Oct 11
Originally posted by no1marauderThen why would any team want to belong to a conference?
It's up to the conferences to decide how to crown their champions.
There's no perfect system, but the one I proposed would accept the present reality that no changes are going to be accepted by the BCS conferences that strips their champion of an automatic bid. If they are really undeserving, they'd lose in the quarter-finals.
...[text shortened]... tter than another team in their conference. They shouldn't get a second bite of the apple.
They would be better served as independents.
An independent with one loss could be taken over a second place finisher in a conference
who also has a single loss. Right?
31 Oct 11
Originally posted by shortcircuitSure and an independent with one loss could be passed over for a conference champ with 2 or 3 losses.
Then why would any team want to belong to a conference?
They would be better served as independents.
An independent with one loss could be taken over a second place finisher in a conference
who also has a single loss. Right?
There are hardly any independents; it's down to Notre Dame, the service academies and BYU. Money seems to be the biggest factor in joining a conference.
Leaving two spots to mid majors/independents seems a reasonable way to reward teams that aren't in the big money conferences (they all can't be).
31 Oct 11
Originally posted by no1marauderWhy not divide the entire country into 8 mega conferences and if you want to play,
Sure and an independent with one loss could be passed over for a conference champ with 2 or 3 losses.
There are hardly any independents; it's down to Notre Dame, the service academies and BYU. Money seems to be the biggest factor in joining a conference.
Leaving two spots to mid majors/independents seems a reasonable way to reward teams that aren't in the big money conferences (they all can't be).
you have to be in one of them.
Then you could take the winners for each of the 8 and make it easy?
31 Oct 11
Originally posted by shortcircuitYou can come up with hypotheticals that radically alter the face of college football and eliminate the traditional conferences, bowl games, etc. etc. all day long. They will never be accepted.
Why not divide the entire country into 8 mega conferences and if you want to play,
you have to be in one of them.
Then you could take the winners for each of the 8 and make it easy?
01 Nov 11
Originally posted by shortcircuitIt's very unlikely that all 8 winners would be the best 8 teams in the country. Odds are one conference winner will even be out of the top 20.
Why not divide the entire country into 8 mega conferences and if you want to play,
you have to be in one of them.
Then you could take the winners for each of the 8 and make it easy?
The idea of 4 super conferences (which the country is headed for anyway) for the major teams and giving the BCS the 4 winners and 4 at large (based on BCS standings) makes the most sense to me. It also seems like the Bowls might accept it is you make the 4 big Bowls the quarters and then have the winners play the semi-finals and finals in the following weeks at the same stadiums at the Big Bowls on a rotating basis.
01 Nov 11
Originally posted by sh76I quite agree about the eight conferences not necessarily producing the 8 best teams.
It's very unlikely that all 8 winners would be the best 8 teams in the country. Odds are one conference winner will even be out of the top 20.
The idea of 4 super conferences (which the country is headed for anyway) for the major teams and giving the BCS the 4 winners and 4 at large (based on BCS standings) makes the most sense to me. It also seems like the ...[text shortened]... ls and finals in the following weeks at the same stadiums at the Big Bowls on a rotating basis.
However, based on No.1's concept, this one is just as valid and just as fair, plus it
would be a ton easier to implement because the guesswork is gone.
If they are going to leave discretion of the voters to make the determination, my point
was that they should not penalize the second best team if they were in the same
conference as the best team.