2010 NCAA football thread....

[wpgflamesfan]

Originally Posted by moon

Every game does not mean the world because now the SEC championship game is likely meaningless, in a play-off system the game would still be huge.

Every game for Alabama is virtually meaningless now but another loss in a play-off system would be killer meaning that their games from here on out would be key.

Every game for TCU is meaningless every season but in a play-off system would be important.

Michigan's game are meaningless but would matter under a play-off system.

The crap that only in this ######ed system do games matter is just that crap. Games would still be important under a play-off system and in many seasons, if not all, there would be a lot more important games and certainly teams with more to play for later on in the season rather than teams having their seasons end as early as the first game of the season and then just going through the motions for the rest of the year.

Last years BCS standings before the SEC championship:
1) Florida
2) Bama
3) Texas
4) TCU
5) Cincinnati
6) Boise
7) Oregon
8) Ohio State

Last year BCS standings after the SEC championship:
1) Bama
2) Texas
3) Cincinnati
4) TCU
5) Florida
6) Boise
7) Oregon
8) Ohio State

What this shows is that the SEC championship would have meant absolutely nothing last year if we had a playoff system. In fact you could argue that Florida would have benefitted more from losing that game as they would have faced TCU instead of Ohio State.

For Alabama every game is still huge because they almost surely get in over an undefeated team from a non-AQ conference. Every game for TCU is huge cause in order to have that 0.01% chance of making it in, they need to run the table. Michigan games are meaningless under either system. There's at least 3 BIG 10 teams that are better than them.

[GirlySports]

Question: Would there even be championship games in the big conferences under a playoff system? Why would teams play for seeding? Wouldn't the best team overall be the de-facto champion?

[ricoFlame]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Question: Would there even be championship games in the big conferences under a playoff system? Why would teams play for seeding? Wouldn't the best team overall be the de-facto champion?

The 12-team conferences that are split into divisions would still want to name a champion wouldn't they?

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by ricoFlame

The 12-team conferences that are split into divisions would still want to name a champion wouldn't they?

Yes I would think so now that you mention it. That would be interesting though, a BIG conference championship game leading into 4 more playoff games.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by ricoFlame

The 12-team conferences that are split into divisions would still want to name a champion wouldn't they?

I don't know, if playing another game means one of their top 8 ranked teams gets bumped out of the playoffs they'd probably rather skip the conference title game. It would vary from year to year, but I can see reasons to not hold those games.

I've said this every single time this topic comes up, I'm all for a playoff, but I'm not for sacrificing what makes college football so exciting from week to week in order to get it. I've laid the challenge out there in every one of these discussions to show me a system that would work and I've never seen an answer that does anything more than shift problems to different places. That's not a solution, it's just different complaints.

[moon]

Originally Posted by PIMking

Wrong again buckaroo.

A one loss or even a two loss team has won a National title. (LSU and Florida)

The rest of Bama's schedule is more important now after the loss because another slip up then they are two games in the hole in the SECw standings. If they don't win the SECw they wont go to the SEC championship game and wont play for a bcs bowl.

So using your logic, Since teams like Bama and USCe have only one loss they might as well roll over and not play anymore? Why? Because they have nothing to play for?

They have everything to play for. Mich is probabaly done since they were not that good of a team to begin with. It was just like last year and "the U is back" crap.

Bama is still alive, USCe is still alive, but Bama has to beat two more top ten teams to get to the seccg in LSU and AllBarn (auburn is considered the farm school)

plenty to be excited about right now. Hell nothing like watching a team like SD or Indy struggle out of the gate with two or three losses only to know that they will pull it together and make the playoffs. Let's see a college program that won the championship last year do that and get back to the big dance. It wouldn't happen, and that is why the CFB sched and game is better than anything the NFL can throw out.

I am just using your flawed logic that games under a play-off system wouldn't matter.

If all those games mean something then they would under a play-off system as well. Considering how many teams would be in play to get a spot more games would have meaning throughout the season.

Yes, 1 or 2 loss teams have won but this year it looks fairly unlikely with Boise St. and TCU fairly safe bets to run the table and one of OSU and Oregon likely to do the same.

There also have been years where undefeated teams have not won the championship based solely on the fact that they were not cool enough at the start of the year to get ranked high in bogus polls.

[moon]

Originally Posted by wpgflamesfan

For Alabama every game is still huge because they almost surely get in over an undefeated team from a non-AQ conference.

This year I don't see them making it in with one loss over TCU or Boise St. and if they do the system definitely needs to be changed.

Originally Posted by PIMking

So using your logic, Since teams like Bama and USCe have only one loss they might as well roll over and not play anymore? Why? Because they have nothing to play for?

Using my logic? It has happened with big teams before. How many times have we seen teams no show in a bowl game that isn't the championship game? or teams that lose easy games in the regular season after the NC hopes are gone.

It isn't my logic it is what I see from teams from big programs.

plenty to be excited about right now. Hell nothing like watching a team like SD or Indy struggle out of the gate with two or three losses only to know that they will pull it together and make the playoffs. Let's see a college program that won the championship last year do that and get back to the big dance. It wouldn't happen, and that is why the CFB sched and game is better than anything the NFL can throw out.

Its nice to see that those NFL teams are able to win the championship on the field and not based on random biased polls. Also it did happen with LSU who was fully undeserving of winning the National Championship in 2007.

To win the SB you have to be the best team and beat the best team, in college football so long as you are ranked high early on and have a SEC style OCC schedule you can beat one good team and be declared the best. That is hardly the best system out there.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by moon

This year I don't see them making it in with one loss over TCU or Boise St. and if they do the system definitely needs to be changed.



Using my logic? It has happened with big teams before. How many times have we seen teams no show in a bowl game that isn't the championship game? or teams that lose easy games in the regular season after the NC hopes are gone.

It isn't my logic it is what I see from teams from big programs.



Its nice to see that those NFL teams are able to win the championship on the field and not based on random biased polls. Also it did happen with LSU who was fully undeserving of winning the National Championship in 2007.

To win the SB you have to be the best team and beat the best team, in college football so long as you are ranked high early on and have a SEC style OCC schedule you can beat one good team and be declared the best. That is hardly the best system out there.

No you don't. You have to be the team that gets hot at the right time and goes on a run in the playoffs. In college football you have to be the best team all year long. There is no margin for error.

[ricoFlame]

Originally Posted by valo403

I don't know, if playing another game means one of their top 8 ranked teams gets bumped out of the playoffs they'd probably rather skip the conference title game. It would vary from year to year, but I can see reasons to not hold those games.

I've said this every single time this topic comes up, I'm all for a playoff, but I'm not for sacrificing what makes college football so exciting from week to week in order to get it. I've laid the challenge out there in every one of these discussions to show me a system that would work and I've never seen an answer that does anything more than shift problems to different places. That's not a solution, it's just different complaints.

I'm not debating playoff, just saying that a great deal of the prestige of playing in some of these conferences is tied to winning the conference championship. I've been pro-playoff from day 1.

[wpgflamesfan]

Originally Posted by moon

Its nice to see that those NFL teams are able to win the championship on the field and not based on random biased polls. Also it did happen with LSU who was fully undeserving of winning the National Championship in 2007.

Who the hell do you put in over LSU that year? Sure they lost two game but both came in triple overtime.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by ricoFlame

I'm not debating playoff, just saying that a great deal of the prestige of playing in some of these conferences is tied to winning the conference championship. I've been pro-playoff from day 1.

If you replace prestige with $$$ I'd agree. If a playoff system can replace that revenue there's plenty of reasons to scrap conference title games.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by valo403

No you don't. You have to be the team that gets hot at the right time and goes on a run in the playoffs. In college football you have to be the best team all year long. There is no margin for error.

Not just all year long, have to be the best team for a number of years!

[valo403]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Not just all year long, have to be the best team for a number of years!

I think you're over valuing the past seasons a bit. It can help with your pre-season ranking, but that's not the be all and end all of things. Past seasons only really matter to the degree that there's carry over. Alabama wasn't ranked number one because they won the title last year, they were ranked number one because they won the title and returned the majority of their impact players. If a team like Oklahoma won the title last year they wouldn't have been number one to start this year simply due to who they lost. Teams like Boise State and TCU needed years of success to move up the rankings because they don't play enough quality opponents to prove themselves, it takes them 4 years of schedules to put up the same number of quality wins that other programs put up in a season.

[moon]

Originally Posted by wpgflamesfan

Who the hell do you put in over LSU that year? Sure they lost two game but both came in triple overtime.

USC would have beat them by 40 that year.

Oklahoma would have beat them easily as well.

[moon]

Originally Posted by valo403

No you don't. You have to be the team that gets hot at the right time and goes on a run in the playoffs. In college football you have to be the best team all year long. There is no margin for error.

You don't have to be the best team at all to beat such great teams as SE Louisiana State or Alabama School or Sewing.

Alabama was bad plenty of times last year but because the Tennessee kicker makes a stupid kick all of a sudden they were the "best" team.

There is plenty of margin for error in CFB especially when only one or two games are against legit opponents.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by moon

You don't have to be the best team at all to beat such great teams as SE Louisiana State or Alabama School or Sewing.

Alabama was bad plenty of times last year but because the Tennessee kicker makes a stupid kick all of a sudden they were the "best" team.

There is plenty of margin for error in CFB especially when only one or two games are against legit opponents.

If that's the case the fact that the Lions are in the NFL means there's an even greater margin for error for all the teams on their schedule.

I'm not sure how this escaped you, but winning a game where you look sloppy or get lucky hurts you in college football. Not as much as a loss, but teams fall based on bad performances in games they win. How does that fit into your argument?

[moon]

Originally Posted by valo403

If that's the case the fact that the Lions are in the NFL means there's an even greater margin for error for all the teams on their schedule.

I'm not sure how this escaped you, but winning a game where you look sloppy or get lucky hurts you in college football. Not as much as a loss, but teams fall based on bad performances in games they win. How does that fit into your argument?

It didn't hurt Alabama at all last season when they should have lost against Tennessee.

You don't have to be the best team all year at all in College Football so long as you have an easy as pie schedule and get lucky on the few games that might be tough.

You don't have to play well in every game because unlike the NFL you aren't playing teams that are good enough to beat you every week.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by moon

It didn't hurt Alabama at all last season when they should have lost against Tennessee.

You don't have to be the best team all year at all in College Football so long as you have an easy as pie schedule and get lucky on the few games that might be tough.

You don't have to play well in every game because unlike the NFL you aren't playing teams that are good enough to beat you every week.

Sure it hurt them, there just wasn't anyone who was in a position to take advantage of it. You aren't going to fall behind teams who have actually lost games simply because you won ugly, that's preposterous.

Who was the last national champ that had an "easy as pie schedule"? I look forward to this response

[moon]

Originally Posted by valo403

Sure it hurt them, there just wasn't anyone who was in a position to take advantage of it. You aren't going to fall behind teams who have actually lost games simply because you won ugly, that's preposterous.

Who was the last national champ that had an "easy as pie schedule"? I look forward to this response

Alabama last season

[nik-]

Originally Posted by moon

Alabama last season

oh my god. hahahaha