2011 NCAA football thread

[PIMking]

Originally Posted by KelVarnsen

For the love of baby Jebus please proof read before you post.

sorry, I was on my phone. I also have dyslexia and it's extremely hard for me to type things.

[transplant99]

Hmmmmm

NCAA president Mark Emmert would support a four-team playoff in college football -- as long as the field doesn't grow.

Start with 4....likely will be 8 within 5 years....finally the suits are thinking straight. Though of course it takes these guys years to decide anything at all.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/...otball-playoff

[JayP]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Hmmmmm



Start with 4....likely will be 8 within 5 years....finally the suits are thinking straight. Though of course it takes these guys years to decide anything at all.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/...otball-playoff

Why exactly is 8 teams better than 4? And presumably 16 better than 8? What about K-State, Arkansas, Wisconsin, Boise St, and South Carolina (the teams filling those 6-8 spots) leads you to believe they are one of the best teams in the country?

[GirlySports]

Why is the system considered flawed? Is Alabama an undeserving champion? or should OK State and Oregon have also gotten a chance?

[nik-]

I think people are hung up on it being two SEC teams and probably additionally a result of SEC being the NC for the last 6 years. I'm not a rah rah conference guy, so I don't really care too much, I'm just glad my team won.

The two best teams this year played. Oregon AND OK State both had incredible chances to lock themselves into the NC game and lost at the worst time. I'm not against playoffs, but I don't necessarily think it really proves who is better in a game like football. Anything can happen over those 60 minutes to have a team win. I think people just want something different and perhaps some upsets, not necessarily proof of the "best" team.

[JayP]

Originally Posted by nik-

I'm not against playoffs, but I don't necessarily think it really proves who is better in a game like football. Anything can happen over those 60 minutes to have a team win. I think people just want something different and perhaps some upsets, not necessarily proof of the "best" team.

That's my main sticking point. The same people who drone on and on about finding the best team tend to be the ones who want a 16 team playoff. Adding more teams typically makes finding the best team more difficult - each additional round increases the chance of an upset. People act like the best team should be this unstoppable force that never loses to an inferior team, but that's foolish.

If you want a playoff because you feel it's more exciting and you want to see great teams match up with each others, I respect that. But don't try and claim that a playoff always finds the best team because that's just not true. A 4 team playoff is probably a better solution than the BCS, but I don't recall a year where I thought that the #7 or #8 team in the country could've been the best. And there definitely isn't a year where the #15 or #16 team deserved a shot. I guess if you feel the Broncos are actually better than the Steelers you might see it differently.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by JayP

Why exactly is 8 teams better than 4? And presumably 16 better than 8? What about K-State, Arkansas, Wisconsin, Boise St, and South Carolina (the teams filling those 6-8 spots) leads you to believe they are one of the best teams in the country?

I didnt say 8 was better....but as with anything NCAA...it will all come down to $$$$....and when they see what a cash cow a PO system is, of course they will expand it. And i will say unequivocally that I believe any of Wisconsin, Arkansas or SC would have given bama a much better game had they had an opportunity.

Again the whole rating system is a gigantic flaw in and of itself, so that would also lend credence to an expanded field.

[nik-]

The Arkansas that both LSU and Bama destroyed during the year would have given them a much better game?

[transplant99]

Yes...that Arkansas....do you not believe that they would have at least put up more than 92 yds of offense? That alone likely makes for a better game...nevermind the whole aspect of playing a team twice in season makes it harder to beat them the second time....look at the title game as evidence.

That really doesnt matter tho in what i am saying....a PO will be coming once the suits figure out how draconian their precious system is AND that there is a ton of money to be made of a PO system......i think even the most ardent bcs defenders have to admit that what they have now is not working, so why not try something else....something every other team sport going uses as well as the ncaa themselves.

Its time for common sense to take hold.

[GirlySports]

You cant guarantee a better final simply based on a playoff.

Let's got through 3 scenarios.

If this were pre-BCS, LSU would have played in the Sugar Bowl against someone and if theyhad won, they're the only undefeated team and they win the title. Is that wrong?

The BCS presents an extra game for LSU against the #2 and since they lost, #2 Alabama is now the undisputed champion. Is that wrong?

If there a 4 or 8 team playoff then #1 LSU has to play more games while giving other teams a chance as well. Let's say #8 West Virginia wins the title despite losing 3 games this year. Is that wrong?

Which scenario do you like best?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

You cant guarantee a better final simply based on a playoff.

Let's got through 3 scenarios.

If this were pre-BCS, LSU would have played in the Sugar Bowl against someone and if theyhad won, they're the only undefeated team and they win the title. Is that wrong?

The BCS presents an extra game for LSU against the #2 and since they lost, #2 Alabama is now the undisputed champion. Is that wrong?

If there a 4 or 8 team playoff then #1 LSU has to play more games while giving other teams a chance as well. Let's say #8 West Virginia wins the title despite losing 3 games this year. Is that wrong?

Which scenario do you like best?

Again...all that is based completely and entirely on a rating system done by writers and coaches....thats the inherent flaw inall this and can be traced back to the beginning of every season...you have coaches who have a blatent agenda to skew it their way, and writers who sinply cannot watch all the teams every weekend to make a decision properly....nevermind they need to do so before a single ball has been snapped at years start, and thats without having a clue about what other teams are going to look like.

the only equitable and fair way to know is to let it happen on the field...afterall this is what its all about....right?

[JayP]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Yes...that Arkansas....do you not believe that they would have at least put up more than 92 yds of offense? That alone likely makes for a better game...nevermind the whole aspect of playing a team twice in season makes it harder to beat them the second time....look at the title game as evidence.

All I know is that Arkansas got their brains beaten in by both teams, but they deserve another shot because it's tough to beat a team twice in a year. Am I getting this right? It actually seems like a defense for the BCS if anything.

[JayP]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Again...all that is based completely and entirely on a rating system done by writers and coaches....thats the inherent flaw inall this and can be traced back to the beginning of every season...you have coaches who have a blatent agenda to skew it their way, and writers who sinply cannot watch all the teams every weekend to make a decision properly....nevermind they need to do so before a single ball has been snapped at years start, and thats without having a clue about what other teams are going to look like.

the only equitable and fair way to know is to let it happen on the field...afterall this is what its all about....right?

And how does this improve in a playoff system? The 4 or 8 teams will be chosen in a very similar fashion that they are now. Instead of the #3 team getting left out it's the #5 or #9 team. It's not much an argument for the playoffs. And if you want to change the way the teams are selected that's a fair point, but you could also do the exact same thing for the current system.

You talk about deciding it on the field, but then focus on Arkansas being a better game than the two teams that slaughtered them in the regular season. Arkansas already decided on the field that they were nowhere near the best team in the country. If the playoff creep happens and the field expands to 16 teams it's not deciding it on the field - it's deciding it on the field at the right time. That can be exciting and fun, but it's not the ideal way to determine the best team.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by JayP

All I know is that Arkansas got their brains beaten in by both teams, but they deserve another shot because it's tough to beat a team twice in a year. Am I getting this right? It actually seems like a defense for the BCS if anything.

Where in the hell did i say they deserved another shot?

I said they would have provided a better game...in my opinion....for the reasons listed.

Why do you continually make stuff up?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by JayP

And how does this improve in a playoff system? The 4 or 8 teams will be chosen in a very similar fashion that they are now. Instead of the #3 team getting left out it's the #5 or #9 team. It's not much an argument for the playoffs. And if you want to change the way the teams are selected that's a fair point, but you could also do the exact same thing for the current system.

You talk about deciding it on the field, but then focus on Arkansas being a better game than the two teams that slaughtered them in the regular season. Arkansas already decided on the field that they were nowhere near the best team in the country. If the playoff creep happens and the field expands to 16 teams it's not deciding it on the field - it's deciding it on the field at the right time. That can be exciting and fun, but it's not the ideal way to determine the best team.

It may not be ideal...buts it a hell of a lot better than what they havew now...which has always been my argument.

And if you dont like it, I suggest you take it up with the suits themselves, they are the ones that will going that way at some point...not me.

[JayP]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Where in the hell did i say they deserved another shot?

I said they would have provided a better game...in my opinion....for the reasons listed.

Why do you continually make stuff up?

I bet you most of the top 30 would've given them a better game too.

What does that prove?

[JayP]

Originally Posted by transplant99

It may not be ideal...buts it a hell of a lot better than what they havew now...which has always been my argument.

And if you dont like it, I suggest you take it up with the suits themselves, they are the ones that will going that way at some point...not me.

It's also short-sighted.

The concept of playoff creep is very real. The NCAA Basketball tournament started with 8 teams.

A 4 team playoff is better than what we have now. An 8 team playoff I'd strongly argue isn't, but I can see the other side. But a 16 team playoff is clearly worse at determining the best team. At the end of the day it might be a lot of fun, but we all talk and act like the team to win the playoffs is always the best team so that's still the primary goal of the system, IMO.

Like you said, it's all about the money and the playoff creep will happen because of that. Going to 4 team playoff could easily spill into a 16 team playoff and I'd much, much rather keep what we have now than that.

[SuperMatt18]

I am in favour of the playoff and even I think that 4 games is about as long as you would want. In football a 8 or 16 team playoff would just be too long and lesser teams and upsets would water down the product.

Usually NCAA Football season there are 3 maybe 4 teams that tend to have an argument at a shot for the title. Usually when you get to the 5th, 6th, 7th, teams there is a reason they are ranked that low, but the top 3/4 usually have a pretty good argument.

The longest I would go would be a 6 team draw with 1st and 2nd seed getting a bye but to me even that is a stretch.

[PIMking]

Will they Keep the bowl games?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by PIMking

Will they Keep the bowl games?

Of course...

as an example.,....why couldnt the Rose bowl be one semi-final and the Orange bowl be another...with the winners meeting in the Fiesta bowl?

Its a no brainer...well except for those that want to argue tradition...but we all know tradition has nothing to do with anything any longer.