Voters even admit they don't watch all of the teams. The current system is a mess. If the polls and BCS are such a great Idea why doesn't the NHL just use power rankings to determine the two teams playing for Lord Stanley's cup?
Utah #1
See this is the problem with all the playoff talk. People don't even analyze the problem and think snapping their fingers and adding a playoff will fix all the issues with the BCS. Voters will still just as important in any logical playoff scenario as there will have to be some at-large playoff bids.
In almost every logical playoff scenario Utah is still left on the outside looking in.
A 4-team playoff would clearly have included Florida, OU, Texas, and Alabama. Not many people would be complaining about those picks, but clearly they wouldn't have been the right ones (after Bama's loss) in retrospect.
An 8-team playoff would logically feature the 6 major conference winners and 2 at-large picks. The 2 at-large picks would almost assuredly have been Texas and Alabama.
A 16-team playoff would never work.
I always find it funny when you see people's reactions to big bowl games and it's always something like "wouldn't it so much better to see Texas, USC, Florida/OU winner, and Utah in a playoff?". You can't just make up a playoff system as you go along.
An 8-team playoff would logically feature the 6 major conference winners and 2 at-large picks. The 2 at-large picks would almost assuredly have been Texas and Alabama.
Unless as I stated earlier and has been brought up by many playoff supporters they make all conferences play a championship game between the best 2 teams in the conference regardless of division and don't allow at larges from the BCS unless they have a better record than all the Non-BCS teams.
Tell Utah and Boise state to man up and join a real conferance and this wouldnt of happend. Plus if Utah was in the pac 10 they wouldnt of went 12-0...
__________________
Thank you for everything CP. Good memories and thankful for everything that has been done to help me out. I will no longer take part on these boards. Take care, Go Flames Go.
Unless as I stated earlier and has been brought up by many playoff supporters they make all conferences play a championship game between the best 2 teams in the conference regardless of division and don't allow at larges from the BCS unless they have a better record than all the Non-BCS teams.
That wouldn't change much.
Only the Big 10, Pac-10 and Big East don't have championship games. However, the latter two conference's regular seasons have each team playing all of the other teams in the conference so a conference championship is unnecessary. I think adding a championship game to the Big 10 is a good idea though.
I think you're trying to say is that instead of Big 12 North vs. Big 12 South you simply would've had Texas vs. Oklahoma. The problem with that is that when you do that there's no point for the divisions with-in a conference. And when you do that in a 12-team conference the schedules become unbalanced and a team could have potentially gone this season without playing Texas, OU, and Texas Tech. When you do it like that it becomes very difficult to determine just who are the best teams in the conference.
Either way, when you try and say that you just take the best two teams in the conference you're getting subjective and you have the exact same issues you seem to have with the BCS.
You say you don't add BCS at-larges if there's a non-BCS school with a better record. Well then instead of Alabama and Texas you get Boise St. and Utah. I'm sure there won't be any people who are unhappy with that choice.
And then you get a situation like last year where Hawaii doesn't play a single ranked team, but gets into the playoffs over Georgia or Missouri. Why would a team even stay in a BCS conference if they knew they could simply go independent and beat the crap out of weak non-BCS schools and get into the playoffs every year?
I think you're trying to say is that instead of Big 12 North vs. Big 12 South you simply would've had Texas vs. Oklahoma. The problem with that is that when you do that there's no point for the divisions with-in a conference. And when you do that in a 12-team conference the schedules become unbalanced and a team could have potentially gone this season without playing Texas, OU, and Texas Tech. When you do it like that it becomes very difficult to determine just who are the best teams in the conference.
First the way the big 12 does it's schedule it is impossible to not play OU or Texas just like it's impossible to not play Nebraska and Colorado (although that obviously needs to be updated, maybe they could do it yearly)
Quote:
Either way, when you try and say that you just take the best two teams in the conference you're getting subjective and you have the exact same issues you seem to have with the BCS.
Well with 120 teams there has to be some subjectivity I agree but this is better than the current system.
Quote:
You say you don't add BCS at-larges if there's a non-BCS school with a better record. Well then instead of Alabama and Texas you get Boise St. and Utah. I'm sure there won't be any people who are unhappy with that choice.
As a Texas alum I would not be upset that UT didn't make the playoffs if they got to play OU in the Big 12 championship and lost.
And then you get a situation like last year where Hawaii doesn't play a single ranked team, but gets into the playoffs over Georgia or Missouri. Why would a team even stay in a BCS conference if they knew they could simply go independent and beat the crap out of weak non-BCS schools and get into the playoffs every year?
This would be something that would have to be addressed, but it could be something based on SOS or some other metric.
__________________ I am in love with Montana. For other states I have admiration, respect, recognition, even some affection, but with Montana it is love." - John Steinbeck
Location: Oklahoma - Where they call a puck a ball...
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sowa
What a surprise coming from an OU fan!!! All I have to say, and you can't deny it, is we dominated you guys in the second half of that game. Also they held us in check most of the game I must admit, but McCoy being unusually off target was the biggest reason, hopefully not because he can't handle the pressure (although he was also off target in the 1st half of the Tech game so it has me worried) because I expect us to be in the title game next year. No one on Texas discredited Tech's win if you can find evidence of that I would like to see it. The clear knock against Tech is they got walloped by you guys. As for us being better than you, I'll let the head to head match up do the talking; you can try and apply the transitive property of football to show your superiority.
So in the manner or arguing since you are gonna use the red river rivalry's last eight minutes to say Texas is better football team than Oklahoma then i will ask you one question that i want you to answer truthfully. Do you think Texas Tech is a better team than Texas?
Either one of your answers to my question give me an argument. If you say that even though tech dominated UT during the first half and pulled out a win, that Ut is a better team then i would say that would be discrediting Tech's win and just because Ut beat OU in the last 8 mins of the game then OU could still be a better team ( and is since they are voted number 1 in the polls) If you say well Tech did beat Texas so Tech is a better team, then i would say if Tech is a better team than Texas and OU throttled Tech then wouldnt that still make Ou a better team than UT..
all i wanted to convey in my original post is that Mac Brown just comes out like an idiot saying he wants the old system back. The biggest reason being that if the old system was back then he wouldnt have had a Natl title because USC would have never played Texas in the Rose Bowl. Mac just needs to admit that his team goofed up by losing to Tech when they controlled their own destiny. Did Texas get screwed? ya probably but do you think if OU and Texas played this week that Texas would win by 10 pts or even win at all? Texas didnt look that great against OSU , but then again i guess that I will have to wait to see what Oklahoma's game looks like tomorrow after the long break.
then i would say if Tech is a better team than Texas and OU throttled Tech then wouldnt that still make Ou a better team than UT..
The transitive property of Football does not work. I used to use it in high school back when the Cowboys were a dynasty and they would lose to someone that got beat by my fav team, in all reality the Cowboys were still the best team in football. What happens in one game against common opponents really doesn't matter, head to head does.
And no I don't think that Tech is better than UT, however they beat us and that's why I don't complain too much about the national championship we're going to win it next year anyways which will coincidentally be MacK Brown's last. I also don't think OU is better than us because we beat you. And yes if we played you again I think we would beat you again.
I would also give us the last 30 mins of the game not the last 8 we outscored you both the 3rd and 4th quarters.
Mack Brown didn't say he wanted the old system back. He wants a playoff and has been saying so for years. He said if this system isn't going to get it right they might as well go back to the old way.
Last edited by FlamingLonghorn; 01-08-2009 at 09:58 AM.
Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
Exp:
Quote:
Sanchez is gone sorry to let you in on that secret
He hasn't decided yet...one way or the other and the fact that both Moreno and Stafford have declared may help him decide to stay. Or have you the inside information that every major sports reporter wants?
Quote:
UTs losing a total of 5 or 6 starters depending on Sergio Kindle, how many is USC losing?
He hasn't decided yet...one way or the other and the fact that both Moreno and Stafford have declared may help him decide to stay. Or have you the inside information that every major sports reporter wants?
Sanchez is getting ranked ahead of Stafford by almost every one now so I am not sure that Stafford declaring will affect him. He'll go top 5 after Bradford. He won't get past the Chiefs most likely.
Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sowa
Sanchez is getting ranked ahead of Stafford by almost every one now so I am not sure that Stafford declaring will affect him. He'll go top 5 after Bradford. He won't get past the Chiefs most likely.
He is not getting ranked ahead of Stafford that I can find.
Here is a quote from 2 days ago from an NFL scout.
Quote:
"He needs more seasoning at the position, but the skill set is there," said the evaluator, who would rank him as the third- or fourth-best quarterback if he were to come out now. "He's not NFL-ready, but he has NFL tools."
And another...
Quote:
Another scout agreed, saying the 6-foot-3, 225-pound Sanchez would benefit from another year to grow stronger and a chance to show that the Rose Bowl was not a fluke.
"That was a breakout game for him, but now I'd like to see him do that repeatedly in the season," he said.
And Sanchez is still undecided....
"
Quote:
It's emotionally difficult," Sanchez said this week. "I'm being tugged both ways."
Sanchez received the draft projection he requested from the NFL but neither he nor Carroll would divulge the specifics.
"It's good," Sanchez said, adding, "It doesn't take into account who's coming out, so that could change."
Sanchez is gone sorry to let you in on that secret... UTs losing a total of 5 or 6 starters depending on Sergio Kindle, how many is USC losing?
I am not going to argue who is going to win the NC next season before this season is already over, but replacing players isn't exactly new to USC. Last season they had something like 8 guys go in the top 3 rounds of the NFL draft and still were able to come back this year and be the best team in the nation.
As for Snachez leaving or not, it would make them a little bit worse but they have a few guys behind him that can play.
I also haven't seen a single place that has rated Sanchez above Stafford or Bradford and as a Lions fan I have been checking out a lot of mock drafts/rankings since about the 2nd week of the NFL season.
If KC drafts Sanches I will never root for them ever agian. I cant stand sanches. But He should go with being a first rounder and the threat of a rookie cap next year.
__________________
Thank you for everything CP. Good memories and thankful for everything that has been done to help me out. I will no longer take part on these boards. Take care, Go Flames Go.
I like how you say that so matter of factly. I also like how you said earlier in this thread you weren't a USC fan but every single post you make has a huge bias towards them. There's several teams that can say they are the best. The winner of OU-Fla, UT, Utah and USC. Unfortunately we will never know.
USC fans act like they have a dynastic program. It's good but it's not any better than the other programs at the top. UT replaces players just as well as USC as does OU, Florida, Ohio St., etc...
Who will replace Sanchez? I am asking because I don't know. I've heard Mustaine might transfer to Auburn to be with his high school coach who is OC there now. Did want to clarify I don't even know if its possible to transfer 2x to D1 schools.
Last edited by FlamingLonghorn; 01-08-2009 at 01:40 PM.
McShay for Espn ranks him 2nd and I was watching Fox Sports and 2 of their guys agreed that he moved up to #2. However, after further research this morning after I posted that it seems that it probably still does lean towards Stafford as #2. I personally would hate if my pro team drafted Stafford he seems to have done nothing but underacheive in his college career.
I like how you say that so matter of factly. I also like how you said earlier in this thread you weren't a USC fan but every single post you make has a huge bias towards them. There's several teams that can say they are the best. The winner of OU-Fla, UT, Utah and USC. Unfortunately we will never know.
I like USC more than any of the other big programs but I am not a fan of them in the same way that you are a fan of Texas or gugstanley is a fan of Utah. If USC loses it doesn't bother me in the least like a Flames/Cardinals/Duke BB loss does.
I think that USC is the best team in the country. Not sure why I can't say it. sure those other teams have a claim but in my view USC is the best and it isn't a question which is why I said it matter of factly.
Quote:
USC fans act like they have a dynastic program. It's good but it's not any better than the other programs at the top. UT replaces players just as well as USC as does OU, Florida, Ohio St., etc...
Who said other programs don't replace their players as well?
You questioned USC next season based on who they were losing and I pointed out that they have dealt with it in the past and been just fine.
I think that over the past 7-8 years USC has been the top team in CFB but those other teams are right there with them.
Quote:
Who will replace Sanchez? I am asking because I don't know. I've heard Mustaine might transfer to Auburn to be with his high school coach who is OC there now. Did want to clarify I don't even know if its possible to transfer 2x to D1 schools.
I don't follow USC that closely but even if Mustian leaves they still have Corp who was a top 2-3 QB recruit from 2 years ago and the top QB recruit this year coming in as well.
Not to mention they also have Johnson, Williams and Hazelton returning as WR and Johnson, Gable, Bradford and McKnight returning in the backfield as well. Plenty of help there for any bumps that may occur with a new QB.
