Congratulations Slave and Catrin!!!

[Adder]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

We may bicker over the top 6-8 or 12-16, but there would be no argument over who should be national champion (or who should be in the national championship game), which is all that really matters.

Why is that all that really matters? That is the underlying assumption in all of this. Why must we pretend that a playoff in football gives us much-needed certainty.

But regardless, it won't end the argument over who should be the champion. There will be a year when Boise State loses one game and doesn't make the 8 team playoff, and plenty of people (mostly tv and radio talking heads) will insist that we don't really know if USC is the rightful champion because they lost once two and never had to play Boise State.

ETA: Right now number 9 in the BCS is undefeated Boise State.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by John Phoenix

What have you tried that has stevia in it? Will this product be better than Coke Zero?

Nothing. But the Austrian coffee shop that I sometimes frequent on my way back from court has little packets of it that I put in my cafe au lait. I like.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

No kidding. Who remembers any of the excluded "bubble" teams in the NCAA hoops tournament after the games start? They're always teams that are good, but finished well down in their conference (too bad #9 from the ACC or Big Ten) Half of them lose in the first round of the NIT anyway. If they win the NIT, then everyone remembers that.

Hoops is a bad parallel. the record of the #1 v. #16 games mean the excluded teams were simply excluded from a fun filled week until they lose Thursday or Friday- they can't really claim to have had a chance at #1.

The Bowl system wouldn't help Boise State because it wouldn't be playing the #1 team under the old bowl system AND under the old Bowl system Ohio State would have likely been #1 after a glorious Rose bowl win the past years.

Thurgreed is right. A playoff would make #1 surer. If they can stretch to 16 teams, I really cannot image the #17 team have any complaint that it could have been #1.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Adder

That's why the old bowl system is preferable to the current BCS. We don't have to decide who is 1 and 2 until it is all over, and we let the polls decide.

They both suck. There should be a playoff.

Originally Posted by Adder

But regardless, it won't end the argument over who should be the champion. There will be a year when Boise State loses one game and doesn't make the 8 team playoff, and plenty of people (mostly tv and radio talking heads) will insist that we don't really know if USC is the rightful champion because they lost once two and never had to play Boise State.

That is complete bullshit. Any team that goes through the playoff system and wins is the champion. The only people in your scenario who would be whining after that happens will be Boise State. And again, no one gives a shit. If you're not good enough to be ranked in the top fucking five even, you have no claim.

TM

[bold_n_brazen]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

Nothing. But the Austrian coffee shop that I sometimes frequent on my way back from court has little packets of it that I put in my cafe au lait. I like.

I've heard that it causes intestinal distress in some.

I have not tried it my own self.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Hoops is a bad parallel. the record of the #1 v. #16 games mean the excluded teams were simply excluded from a fun filled week until they lose Thursday or Friday- they can't really claim to have had a chance at #1.

The Bowl system wouldn't help Boise State because it wouldn't be playing the #1 team under the old bowl system AND under the old Bowl system Ohio State would have likely been #1 after a glorious Rose bowl win the past years.

Thurgreed is right. A playoff would make #1 surer. If they can stretch to 16 teams, I really cannot image the #17 team have any complaint that it could have been #1.

Well, obviously a playoff is better.

But the analogy is better than you think. The bubble teams in hoops end up as #10 or #11 seeds. Seeds 12-16 go to all the single-team conferences or some team that happened to win their conference tournament despite otherwise sucking.

But anyway, I don't think you can say a #9 team has any more beef. Look at Hawaii last year (?)--undefeated, in the BCS, and got totally smoked in the Sugar Bowl.

Sure, there going to be arguments over who are the 8, but as TM points out, make the top 5 or top 3 and get in--that's usually where the debate is anyway. This is a pretty rare year where there are at least 5 teams that could claim to be #1 (2 BCS, texas--beat OK, USC-one road loss in Sept., Penn St.--one point loss on road)

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by Adder

That's why the old bowl system is preferable to the current BCS. We don't have to decide who is 1 and 2 until it is all over, and we let the polls decide.

How so? While being 1 (or 2) mattered less with bowls, it still mattered. And, worse, the old bowls rarely set up a matchup that was 1 vs. 2, or even 1 vs. an arguable 3 or 4. 1 vs. 2 is the best matchup for determining the best team, and the BCS at least does a better effort of matching 1 vs. 2, rather than just nearly random assortments of games. Its shortcoming is picking who actually is 1 and 2, as this year.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

Well, obviously a playoff is better.

But the analogy is better than you think. The bubble teams in hoops end up as #10 or #11 seeds. Seeds 12-16 go to all the single-team conferences or some team that happened to win their conference tournament despite otherwise sucking.

But anyway, I don't think you can say a #9 team has any more beef. Look at Hawaii last year (?)--undefeated, in the BCS, and got totally smoked in the Sugar Bowl.

Sure, there going to be arguments over who are the 8, but as TM points out, make the top 5 or top 3 and get in--that's usually where the debate is anyway. This is a pretty rare year where there are at least 5 teams that could claim to be #1 (2 BCS, texas--beat OK, USC-one road loss in Sept., Penn St.--one point loss on road)

Penn State is good, but they have no claim to No. 1, even if they hadn't lost to Iowa. The Big Ten sucks. That and OSU was going to beat them if Pryor hadn't fumbled.

USC is going to kill them.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

Well, obviously a playoff is better.

But the analogy is better than you think. The bubble teams in hoops end up as #10 or #11 seeds. Seeds 12-16 go to all the single-team conferences or some team that happened to win their conference tournament despite otherwise sucking.

But anyway, I don't think you can say a #9 team has any more beef. Look at Hawaii last year (?)--undefeated, in the BCS, and got totally smoked in the Sugar Bowl.

If you believe this (and I happen to agree), there isn't much reason for a playoff either.

Sure, there going to be arguments over who are the 8, but as TM points out, make the top 5 or top 3 and get in--that's usually where the debate is anyway. This is a pretty rare year where there are at least 5 teams that could claim to be #1 (2 BCS, texas--beat OK, USC-one road loss in Sept., Penn St.--one point loss on road)

But these are the arguments that the regular season exists to settle. Really, we are talking about which of the which of the champions of the SEC, Big Ten, PAC Ten and Big Twelve should be playing for the championship. I just don't see the injustice two of them being left out of the big bowl.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by Adder

But these are the arguments that the regular season exists to settle. Really, we are talking about which of the which of the champions of the SEC, Big Ten, PAC Ten and Big Twelve should be playing for the championship. I just don't see the injustice two of them being left out of the big bowl.

You forgot at least the ACC (Miami and Florida State used to be good . . . )

But that aside, you don't see a problem that Texas is left out despite beating Oklahoma at a neutral site mainly because the tiebreaker rules of the Big XII put OK into the title game?

(yes, I realize that's an argument against the Big XII tiebreakers, but you're relying on the regular season to settle things, which it didn't because certain teams won't play others, which is also true of plenty of interconference matchups).

[Adder]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

The only people in your scenario who would be whining after that happens will be Boise State.

Wishful thinking.

If you're not good enough to be ranked in the top fucking five even, you have no claim.

How is this any different than saying "if you aren't good enough to be in the top two even you have no claim?"

But my point is to separate the two underlying motivations for a playoff. You are focusing on certainty. I don't place much value on that, but fine. But you could easily get the same result with the plus one (or a four team playoff).

The other motivation is inclusiveness, with the non-BCS conferences, and the folks in the media that champion their cause, complaining that the Boise States of the world go undefeated but still never get the chance to play for the championship. There beef isn't totally unfounded, but you can't solve this "problem" unless you have at least 8, but more likely 16 teams in a playoff. There are ways to make either happen, but they involve throwing basically the entire college football tradition, for the 1 in 100 shot that Boise State pulls off a string up unlikely upsets.

[Flinty_McFlint]

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

But that aside, you don't see a problem that Texas is left out despite beating Oklahoma at a neutral site mainly because the tiebreaker rules of the Big XII put OK into the title game?

Some of us appreciate the delicious irony of it all and still secretly pray for Mack Brown to experience extreme humiliation on National TV. Some of us have also bought industrial-grade laxatives and have discretely inquired as to the chain of custody of the coaches' sideline waterbottles.

[Replaced_Texan]

The Messiah rocks.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

You forgot at least the ACC (Miami and Florida State used to be good . . . )

I didn't forget them. I named the four that most frequently in the discussion.

But that aside, you don't see a problem that Texas is left out despite beating Oklahoma at a neutral site mainly because the tiebreaker rules of the Big XII put OK into the title game?

No. Someone is always going to be left out. Let the Big Ten champ play the PAC Ten champ, and the Big East champ play the ACC champ (ideally Big 12 would also play SEC) and vote. It is certainly no less accurate than the current system, and only marginally less accurate than adding a fourth game and making a playoff.

[bold_n_brazen]

Originally Posted by Adder

I didn't forget them. I named the four that most frequently in the discussion.



No. Someone is always going to be left out. Let the Big Ten champ play the PAC Ten champ, and the Big East champ play the ACC champ (ideally Big 12 would also play SEC) and vote. It is certainly no less accurate than the current system, and only marginally less accurate than adding a fourth game and making a playoff.

I think you could safely leave the Big east out of the equation (at least where football is concerned) most of the time.