Sports
09 Jan 09
10 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by SmookiePFlorida's OOC schedule wasn't exactly completely cream-puff; they did rout Florida St. on the road and beat Miami and Hawaii (both bowl teams if not exactly powerhouses) at home. Utah did play Michigan on the road; the Wolverines wound up to be pretty bad but they were actually ranked in the preseason so it's not like they scheduled easy. They also did play Oregon State at home.
And Utah does? What's your point here?
EDIT: I better make sure I dot all my 'I's and put my apostrophes where they belong here for Sasquatch.
Given that's there is no playoff, I'd rank Florida #1 by a whisker over Utah. The Gators only loss was a 1 pointer (on a blocked extra point) to a Ole Miss team that was erratic but did smash Texas Tech in a bowl game. I'd rate Utah over USC for the simple reason they did beat the team (though barely) that upset the Trojans.
SC's claim that Texas would have probably beaten Florida gets a LMAO! They barely pulled one out against Bowl-challenged Ohio State.
10 Jan 09
Originally posted by BadwaterPlayoffs are not the only way to decide things.
Utah beat what was the #1 team for many weeks - and from the SEC - soundly. The Utah defense was very impressive. I am certain that defense would have given Florida and OK fits as well. Alas, we'll never know because the BCS is a flawed system, as it demonstrates year after year after year. The BCS will fail us again next year, and the year after that. It's ...[text shortened]... ded in playoff rounds. NCAA Div I football needs to catch up and stop the excremental charade.
(1) It makes everyone who makes the playoffs equal (which they shouldn't be because there are so many great games which would be watered down).
(2) It puts you at a disadvantage for being in a conference that plays great games week in and week out and does not control its own schedule.
(3) If we had an eight team playoff with the six conference champs getting automatic bids. It is very realistic to see Utah being excluded. For instance if Oregon State won its last game, they win the Pac Ten. The two at large teams should be the two next best teams which according to the polls (And rightfully so) would be USC and Texas.
I think winning your conference and beating someone else's conference champion should be enough to feel you had a great year.
10 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by quackquackBaloney. If you don't win your conference, you don't deserve to be in a playoff. Put the 6 BCS conference champions and two wild cards from the mid majors or independents. You could even keep the bowl tie ins if that would be needed to convince the powers that be.
Playoffs are not the only way to decide things.
(1) It makes everyone who makes the playoffs equal (which they shouldn't be because there are so many great games which would be watered down).
(2) It puts you at a disadvantage for being in a conference that plays great games week in and week out and does not control its own schedule.
(3) If we had an ...[text shortened]... and beating someone else's conference champion should be enough to feel you had a great year.
EDIT: Specifically my proposal was as follows:
Clearly a playoff system is needed and I've helpfully proposed one (The Marauder Championship Series): the 6 BCS automatic bid conference champions and two mid-major conference champs or a higher rated independent (based on the BCS system) to play a first round in the four main bowls, with the semi-finals to be the next week and the championship game to follow the next. This would add only two games and would leave an undisputed champion.
The traditional bowls would probably want to retain their conference tie-ins which would mean the Big Ten would generally lose in the first round. The other games would pit the conference tie in (Sugar -SEC; Orange - ACC; and Fiesta (Big 12) team with the appropriately rated opponent in reverse order.
10 Jan 09
(1) It makes everyone who makes the playoffs equal (which they shouldn't be because there are so many great games which would be watered down).
Total BS. You have swallowed the cheese. This logic wasn't even true this year. Texas beat OU, that means that the game itself didn't mean anything when it comes to deciding the MNC. One game in itself doesn't matter. You've got to win that game, then continue to finish. That's the way it is right now anyhow.
As for all teams being equal, once again that's crap. If all teams were equal, then each game would be a coin flip. I'd say that USC defeats Penn State well over half the times they play.
10 Jan 09
Why would you put the wild card only be from the mid majors? The second best team, in the Big SEC and Big 12 are ranked ahead of Utah.
Why would anyone want to be in a major conference, if you have to win that conference to be considered for a playoff?
I much rather keep the footbal system the way it is than ruin the sport the way college basketball did.
10 Jan 09
2 edits
Originally posted by quackquackYou're the only one I ever heard who thinks March Madness "ruined" college basketball.
Why would you put the wild card only be from the mid majors? The second best team, in the Big SEC and Big 12 are ranked ahead of Utah.
Why would anyone want to be in a major conference, if you have to win that conference to be considered for a playoff?
I much rather keep the footbal system the way it is than ruin the sport the way college basketball did.
Who cares what the rankings are? If a team finishes behind another team in the regular season, why should they get an equal chance in a playoff - considering that a football playoff has to be severely limited in teams allowed in? Why shouldn't non-BCS conference teams get a shot? They've now won 3 out of the 4 games they were allowed in the BCS. And the second best team in the SEC was rated higher than Utah, but that didn't stop Utah from mopping up the floor with them.
BCS conference membership would still be desirable for many reasons (particularly money) but the conference champ would also get an automatic bid, while other conferences wouldn't. This idea also answers your objections 2 and 3 above (quite frankly, I don't understand objection 1).
10 Jan 09
I don't see the need for BCS conference champs. That "BCS conference" crap is just that, crap. You should earn your way into the game, not have an automatic bid for certain groups.
Limit the number of conference reps, but don't say certain conferences get automatic bids.
10 Jan 09
Originally posted by EladarI meant to make a realistic proposal, not a pie in the sky. The fact is that the 6 BCS conferences get an extraordinary amount of money out of the BCS system and are not going to agree to anything that cuts them out of the cash. Money is also a reason for using the present bowls as quarter finals.
I don't see the need for BCS conference champs. That "BCS conference" crap is just that, crap. You should earn your way into the game, not have an automatic bid for certain groups.
Limit the number of conference reps, but don't say certain conferences get automatic bids.
Outside of that, making winning a conference championship a requirement lessens the arbitrariness of picking the 8 teams. Otherwise there will be endless bickering about who "deserves" to be in the playoff. That would make the result only a marginal improvement over the BCS.
10 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by quackquackTotal BS.
Winning the conference also preserve rivalries and preserves the importance of the season where the majority of the games are played.
The conference ties do nothing more than preserve that "haves and have nots". All that money goes to conference teams allowing them to upgrade their facilities and gives them a competative advantage. Teams like Utah, Air Force, and Boise State do not have the guaranteed big bucks flowing into their programs.
10 Jan 09
Originally posted by EladarMost people are not unhappy with the system; they are unhappy with the result (that Utah isn't in the playoff). The BCS actually creates a one game playoff with #1 vs, #2. To me that is enough. If we had a four team playoff before the bowl it would have been Oklahoma, Florida, Texas and Alabama. I like the weekly races in the big conferences and i see no reason to change the system to satisfy certain the "Utahs" that feel entitled to a national championship because they won their junky conference (at least compared to the SEC and Big 12).
Total BS.
The conference ties do nothing more than preserve that "haves and have nots". All that money goes to conference teams allowing them to upgrade their facilities and gives them a competative advantage. Teams like Utah, Air Force, and Boise State do not have the guaranteed big bucks flowing into their programs.
10 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderI understand you point #1, but there is a fly in the ointment. In your "conference champion" requirement, you are running into potential problems. First, in the larger, two division conferences, you will force them to retain the conference championship game. That additional game coupled with the playoofs would provide a huge advantage to the at large teams who don't have to play that extra game. The second problem I see is what happens when you have three conference teams that end up with identical records, yet two of them did play the other? Now, it would be possible that the best team might be left out because their RPI wasn't as strong due to the conference schedule. It is impractical for 12 team conferences to play 11 conference games and no outside games. The same is really true of all of the major conferences. I don't think the NCAA is ready to go in and re-distribute the teams and conferences to 9 team conferences where they play 8 conference games and the best conference record advances. That would make for a clean playoff system if they developed eight 9 team conferences, but it would sure foul up old time allegiances.
Baloney. If you don't win your conference, you don't deserve to be in a playoff. Put the 6 BCS conference champions and two wild cards from the mid majors or independents. You could even keep the bowl tie ins if that would be needed to convince the powers that be.
EDIT: Specifically my proposal was as follows:
Clearly a playoff system is needed and range - ACC; and Fiesta (Big 12) team with the appropriately rated opponent in reverse order.
There really is no real sure fire way to do this fairly where someone doesn't get screwed sometimes. But I do agree that a playoff system of some sort is needed to save the game.
You know, another possibility is to go to a tiered championship playoff system. You could have the division A which the top half of teams will be playing for, and then you have the lower tier divison B which the lower half of teams would play for. In this way, the bigger stronger teams USC, Texas, OU, Notre Dame, etc.... would be in the upper division, while your Boston Colleges, East Carolinas, Brigham Youngs, etc... would compete. You would actually have two national champions. But it would give Boise State, Hawaii, and the other schools who only occasionally produce a competitive team on the major scale, a chance to compete legitimately every year. The Division A title would be even more impressive and it wouldn't be diluted by the addition of a lower tier National Champion. They are already doing this in High School in Texas, and I am sure in other states as well, so why not at the collegiate level? By paring down the number of teams competing, it makes a playoff much more viable.
Just a thought.
10 Jan 09
Originally posted by shortcircuitYou are incorrect; I already said how the individual conference determines their champion is up to them. It's unclear to me whether having a conference championship game is a disadvantage; you have to play an extra game but you don't have as long a layoff. Anyway, I'd just leave it to the conferences.
I understand you point #1, but there is a fly in the ointment. In your "conference champion" requirement, you are running into potential problems. First, in the larger, two division conferences, you will force them to retain the conference championship game. That additional game coupled with the playoofs would provide a huge advantage to the at large te ...[text shortened]... n the number of teams competing, it makes a playoff much more viable.
Just a thought.
The situation in the Big 12 South this year was unique and unlikely to be repeated. I don't know any way to factor that in; surely if Oklahoma and Texas deserved to be in an 8 team playoff, than one loss Texas Tech did, too. As I don't think a 16 team playoff is desirable or practical, I guess that extraordinary situation remains an insoluble problem.
Some mid-majors have shown the ability to compete in the BCS; in fact, in the last 5 years, 4 have qualified for the BCS and 3 have won. I don't think you can consider them "B" plus what is "B" changes over time. So I don't think it would be fair to automatically shut out exceptional mid-majors and/or independents.
10 Jan 09
Originally posted by quackquackYou seem to be forgetting that Utah of the "junky" Mountain West routed Alabama of the SEC.
Most people are not unhappy with the system; they are unhappy with the result (that Utah isn't in the playoff). The BCS actually creates a one game playoff with #1 vs, #2. To me that is enough. If we had a four team playoff before the bowl it would have been Oklahoma, Florida, Texas and Alabama. I like the weekly races in the big conferences and i s ...[text shortened]... ampionship because they won their junky conference (at least compared to the SEC and Big 12).