Re: College Football - Bowl Discussion

[Mephistopheles]

It would be nearly impossible for an eight or sixteen team playoff to crown one of the worst teams in the country as national champion. But, of course, adding more teams and more games would decrease the likelihood of the best team winning the championship.

 

My point is given the top three teams or the field in the current setup you take the top three teams in any playoff (outside MAYBE a +1) you take the field.

[Hosak8]

I think there would be a lot of split title sentiment if Utah won impressively over Alabama. You're right that it probably wouldn't be enough but it was just some food for thought.

 

I'll go ahead and beat that poor, dead horse:

 

We need a playoff to correct this stuff.

 

A playoff will crown the one of the best two teams national champion less than the current system.

 

So?

 

Then we're replacing one system that usually crowns one of the top three teams in the country as national champion with a system that usually crowns one of the worst 117 teams in the country as national champion.

 

The sheer absurdity of this statement is enjoyable enough, but I'd love to hear your logic behind this.

[Hosak8]

For the record, I think it's cute that people are still arguing the "best" team. Sports are not designed to determine the "best" team, they are designed to determine a champion.

 

Big difference.

[SpongeWorthy]

I could handle that. And I don't think every playoff structure necessarily creates the scenario you're talking about.

 

The only one that doesn't is a +1 playoff. Every other one does, and even the +1 system will crown the top 2 teams less often than the current setup. This isn't up for debate.

 

In other words, it is up for debate.

[Mephistopheles]

They are?

 

On the hype meter I don't think this one is even approaching USC/Texas, USC/OU, Miami/OSU.

 

It's not higher than USC and Texas, but it's up there with USC/OU and Miami/Ohio St. There are some AP voters touting Florida as comparable to that Miami team.

[Exile on Waveland]

It would be nearly impossible for an eight or sixteen team playoff to crown one of the worst teams in the country as national champion. But, of course, adding more teams and more games would decrease the likelihood of the best team winning the championship.

 

My point is given the top three teams or the field in the current setup you take the top three teams in any playoff (outside MAYBE a +1) you take the field.

 

I understand your point, and agree. I just think, semantically, "worst" was a poor word choice.

[Mephistopheles]

I think there would be a lot of split title sentiment if Utah won impressively over Alabama. You're right that it probably wouldn't be enough but it was just some food for thought.

 

I'll go ahead and beat that poor, dead horse:

 

We need a playoff to correct this stuff.

 

A playoff will crown the one of the best two teams national champion less than the current system.

 

So?

 

Then we're replacing one system that usually crowns one of the top three teams in the country as national champion with a system that usually crowns one of the worst 117 teams in the country as national champion.

 

The sheer absurdity of this statement is enjoyable enough, but I'd love to hear your logic behind this.

 

because the best team doesn't always win and making the best teams play more games against good teams makes it more likely they lose? it's not rocket science, to most people.

[Mephistopheles]

It would be nearly impossible for an eight or sixteen team playoff to crown one of the worst teams in the country as national champion. But, of course, adding more teams and more games would decrease the likelihood of the best team winning the championship.

 

My point is given the top three teams or the field in the current setup you take the top three teams in any playoff (outside MAYBE a +1) you take the field.

 

I understand your point, and agree. I just think, semantically, "worst" was a poor word choice.

 

and that's why i chose the wording i did instead of something like "the playoff system would usually not crown one of the top three teams." as a fan though a playoff Cinderella is always fun and makes it entertaining. we have those already though.

[Hosak8]

I think there would be a lot of split title sentiment if Utah won impressively over Alabama. You're right that it probably wouldn't be enough but it was just some food for thought.

 

I'll go ahead and beat that poor, dead horse:

 

We need a playoff to correct this stuff.

 

A playoff will crown the one of the best two teams national champion less than the current system.

 

So?

 

Then we're replacing one system that usually crowns one of the top three teams in the country as national champion with a system that usually crowns one of the worst 117 teams in the country as national champion.

 

The sheer absurdity of this statement is enjoyable enough, but I'd love to hear your logic behind this.

 

because the best team doesn't always win and making the best teams play more games against good teams makes it more likely they lose? it's not rocket science, to most people.

 

Which, again, plays to my point. It's cute- or pretty naive- that you (or anyone else) think that ANY sport is set up to determine the "best" team. It's not. Only to crown a champion.

[Exile on Waveland]

I think there would be a lot of split title sentiment if Utah won impressively over Alabama. You're right that it probably wouldn't be enough but it was just some food for thought.

 

I'll go ahead and beat that poor, dead horse:

 

We need a playoff to correct this stuff.

 

A playoff will crown the one of the best two teams national champion less than the current system.

 

So?

 

Then we're replacing one system that usually crowns one of the top three teams in the country as national champion with a system that usually crowns one of the worst 117 teams in the country as national champion.

 

The sheer absurdity of this statement is enjoyable enough, but I'd love to hear your logic behind this.

 

because the best team doesn't always win and making the best teams play more games against good teams makes it more likely they lose? it's not rocket science, to most people.

 

Which, again, plays to my point. It's cute- or pretty naive- that you (or anyone else) think that ANY sport is set up to determine the "best" team. It's not. Only to crown a champion.

 

The current system crowns a champion.

[Mephistopheles]

every system crowns a champion.

[Derwood]

i'm curious why there is no outcry over the ridiculous disparity in scheduling between the conferences. why does USC get THREE bye weeks and the Big 10 teams get just one (and last, year NONE)? Get everyone on the same schedule, make the championship games a week earlier, and have the first round of a playoff in the 2nd week of December (at the Top 4's home stadiums).

[Mephistopheles]

because the big ten wants their schedule to be done by thanksgiving and the pac 10 plays a larger conference schedule that goes into december during championship week. it's the big ten's fault. a lot of the big tens problems are their own creation. schedule tougher non conference games, lengthen the duration of the season, or add another team to get a championship game. this sets them up better for the layoff (making it shorter).

 

really the big ten is stuck in the 1900s.

Edited January 2, 2009 by Mephistopheles

[Derwood]

because the big ten wants their schedule to be done by thanksgiving and the pac 10 plays a larger conference schedule that goes into december during championship week. it's the big ten's fault.

 

that's fine. my point is that if you're using BCS conference membership as some higher order for consideration in bowl games, get them on the same page schedule-wise.

[Hosak8]

every system crowns a champion.

 

Wonder why your other post was deleted? Hmmm...

 

I know that every system crowns a champion, hence the reason why I have never made an argument for one system over another. I would prefer an 8 team playoff, sure, but I'm not going to argue that it would determine the "best" team any better than any other system. The "best" team is a myth, period.

[Derwood]

every system crowns a champion.

 

Wonder why your other post was deleted? Hmmm...

 

I know that every system crowns a champion, hence the reason why I have never made an argument for one system over another. I would prefer an 8 team playoff, sure, but I'm not going to argue that it would determine the "best" team any better than any other system. The "best" team is a myth, period.

 

i don't think (most) proponents of a playoff want it because the "best" team will always win

[Mephistopheles]

every system crowns a champion.

 

Wonder why your other post was deleted? Hmmm...

 

I know that every system crowns a champion, hence the reason why I have never made an argument for one system over another. I would prefer an 8 team playoff, sure, but I'm not going to argue that it would determine the "best" team any better than any other system. The "best" team is a myth, period.

 

because i hate talking to you for _____________ reason. And no it's not because you're smart, make good points or anything good you may think it is. The best team is a myth? There is always a best team and if you think otherwise you're absolutely a dumbass. We may not be able to completely determine or evaluate who that best team is within a thirteen or fourteen game schedule, but it always exists. It's comments like that that made me delete that post.

[Derwood]

every system crowns a champion.

 

Wonder why your other post was deleted? Hmmm...

 

I know that every system crowns a champion, hence the reason why I have never made an argument for one system over another. I would prefer an 8 team playoff, sure, but I'm not going to argue that it would determine the "best" team any better than any other system. The "best" team is a myth, period.

 

because i hate talking to you for _____________ reason. And no it's not because you're smart, make good points or anything good you may think it is. The best team is a myth? There is always a best team and if you think other wise you're absolutely a dumbass. We may not be able to completely determine or evaluate who that best team is within a thirteen or fourteen game schedule, but it always exists.

 

so what? no sport crowns the "best" team as champion, so what does it matter who is?

[SpongeWorthy]

It is vital we keep a playoff out of college football. It would be a national tragedy if sanctimonious internet posters were unable to play mathematician and had nothing to do besides guild raids on World of Warcraft. Edited January 2, 2009 by SpongeWorthy

[Mephistopheles]

so what? no sport crowns the "best" team as champion, so what does it matter who is?

 

Let's make a list of some of the main reasons people bitch about the BCS.

 

1. It didn't pick the top two teams.

2. Someone else beat that team in the game.

3. My team is better than that team in the game.

4. That team lost to some crappy school.

 

Almost all of the reasons that people bitch about the BCS have to do with that persons idea of who the "best" or "better" team is. So why should we replace it with a system that will find the "best" or "better" one less often? It's piss poor logic.

[abuck1220]

i liked how the announcers were pretending like usc's loss to osu didn't happen. they were acting like they could barely wrap their head around usc's greatness.

[Hosak8]

so what? no sport crowns the "best" team as champion, so what does it matter who is?

 

Let's make a list of some of the main reasons people bitch about the BCS.

 

1. It didn't pick the top two teams.

2. Someone else beat that team in the game.

3. My team is better than that team in the game.

4. That team lost to some crappy school.

 

Almost all of the reasons that people bitch about the BCS have to do with that persons idea of who the "best" or "better" team is. So why should we replace it with a system that will find the "best" or "better" one less often? It's piss poor logic.

 

Actually, you speaking for the rest of the country is pretty unbecoming.

 

Most people want a new system because they believe that the champion will be determined on the field. The BCS is often criticized for not doing so. Of course you left that off the list, because had you not, you would have no argument.

 

Case in point: Oklahoma. They beat Florida, they are the champions, despite what happened on the field against Texas. In a playoff, that is not the case. Both teams make the playoffs, Texas loses before playing Oklahoma, their entire argument is defeated.

[The Voice of Reason]

Much greater chance of Florida losing at Oregon State than USC losing at home to Ole Miss.

 

The Ole Miss dogging has to stop. Ole Miss is a better team than Oregon State and is one of the top twenty teams in the country. They're not chopped liver. I think people are going to be surprised tomorrow afternoon. I don't think they will win, but I think it will be a close game. That being said, Florida and USC are a toss up.

 

Florida lost at home. The Trojans lost on the road.

[The Voice of Reason]

Rittenberg nails it.

 

A major setback for Penn State, Big Ten

 

January 1, 2009 9:16 PM

 

Posted by ESPN.com's Adam Rittenberg

 

Penn State entered the Cardinal and Gold inferno known as Rose Bowl Stadium in search of national respect for its football program and secondly, its beleaguered conference.

 

The Nittany Lions ended up getting burned, and so did the Big Ten.

 

Penn State players had grown tired of hearing how great No. 5 USC was this season. The eighth-ranked Lions don't have to hear it any more. They experienced it in the Rose Bowl Game presented by Citi.

 

In a game that would define Penn State and the Big Ten more than any other this postseason, USC beat the Nittany Lions 38-24. The result wasn't a total surprise, but the way it happened was shocking.

 

If this is the best the Big Ten has to offer, and Penn State earned that designation during the regular season, then the league has some major problems. The Big Ten's bowl lineup looked murderous, but four double-digit losses is pretty weak.

 

Three traditional powerhouse programs and major TV markets will always make the Big Ten relevant in college football, but we're in the dark ages for the conference. The Big Ten hasn't won a Rose Bowl since 2000 and, like many around college football, can't find an answer for USC.

 

Ohio State could dull the pain with a Tostitos Fiesta Bowl win against Texas on Monday, but the Jim Delany's league has to do some soul searching after the season. The Big Ten entered the 2008 season with a poor national reputation and thus far has done nothing to change it.

[hawkeyecub]

FYI the Big Ten is adding a bye week and pushing the schedule back so it ends the Saturday after Thanksgiving. Some teams will do it beginning next year (I know OSU/Michigan and Iowa/Minnesota aren't) but all will go to that format in 2010 I believe.