College football jam.....

sunvalleylaw said:
I will stay out of this aspect of the conversation (after this :wink:) because it just gets too frustrating. I still believe the field of play is the way to determine who is best. With some accomadation of some kind to a team in a strong conference, to me playoffs are the way to go, including conference champions as participants. Determining "No. 1" without a playoff season is meaningless to me.

So from the perspective of reality, I will just enjoy seeing who becomes conference champions, and gets to go to bowl games. I am not going to worry about the rest or who is "crowned" number one. College football to me is not about watching the best teams in the country according to the experts. I would rather watch USC vs. OR, or better yet, USC vs. UW, and UW in the Rose Bowl, than Alabama vs. the Gators, or LSU or whatever. I have no connection to those teams.

I understand the viewers that do, and that is just fine. More power to them. Just not why I enjoy college ball.
Click to expand...

I never lost a mountain bike race to my niece, so I should be as good as you and Tig then. Right Steve. :helper:
 
I get there needs to be some kind of rankings. In high school, there are the AAA schools, AA etc. Or 4A, 3A, . . . you get what I mean. Bigger schools compete with bigger schools. But in college, once the schools are divided up by size, just because the pundits say an athlete or team is the best does not mean it is so. The skiing world at one time "decided" that the Austrian racers (along with Ingemar Stenmark from Sweden) were best, and that Phil and Steve Maher didn't stand a chance in the World Cup. (a season long cup awarded for overall race results). They were proved wrong.

Just saying the same could happen here. That has nothing to do with handing out blue ribbons to all finishers of the local 5k or whatever.

Oh, and I might or might not be able to beat your niece in a mountain bike race. But I bet I could beat you! :grin:
 
Last edited:
reverend1 said:
I never lost a mountain bike race to my niece, so I should be as good as you and Tig then. Right Steve. :helper:
Click to expand...

you could use this same argument to shoot down your view. Take the SEC for example, the SEC only plays other SEC teams and a few cupcake games. So if the SEC is having a down year, you would never know, there is no basis of comparison. Now if Alabama played a big 12 team each year and Florida Played a Pac 12 team and so on, then you would have some kind of way to determine how good the conference is in reference to each other. Alabama beating the snot out of Florida Atlantic is you beating your niece in a bike race and does nothing to prove Bama is the best in the nation. The only decent comparison we get for the SEC is with the ACC because FSU vs UF, Clemson vs SC and Georgia vs GA Tech happens every year. So I can easily say, the SEC is better than the ACC and have something to back it up. You can say the SEC is better than the PAC 12, but there isn't really anything to support that, they never play each other.
 
Here's why I think the 4 team playoff is a great solution:

Even when you take things out of the equasion like conference domination or strength of schedule, there will be years when there just isn't a clear cut winner because they only play 12 games in the regular season.

In 2010 Michigan State beat Notre Dame, Michigan and Wisconsin with their only loss of the season coming to Iowa.

Ohio State also beat Michigan, beat Iowa, and their only loss was to Wisconsin.

Wisconsin beat Ohio State, Iowa, Michigan, and their one loss was to Michigan State.

The three teams had to split their Big 10 Championship and it really screwed up bowl game placement in the BCS, especially since Ohio state was later sancioned and had to forfit their win. Take Ohio state out of the triangle and MSU would have been the big 10 champs and played in a better bowl.


You expand this to a nation wide group of teams who often don't play each other and the wins have to be extrapolated from one to another... and you get into this fantasy accounting bullshit instead of letting a team go out and see what happens on the field. The regular season will still play out as normal now, but when it gets too close to call for the top 4 teams, the winner that emerges from that playoff group will have a much more definitive win on the season.
 
reverend1 said:
When teams from small conferences play teams from big ones there is a huge gap on talent. That's why an undefeated team shouldn't automatically get in. Just by virtue of being undefeated.
Click to expand...

Like when Michigan and Appalachian State played?
 
baimun said:
what was last year's score? Oh that's right... Michigan 40... Ohio State 34 (and I don't even like either team.) :helper:
Click to expand...

I'm a passive Ohio State fan. I don't really like them, but due to a friends fanaticism I hate Michigan.


Funny story about the Michigan Appalachian State game. My above mention friend watched that game at my house. When Michigan lost he removed his Michigan shirt and hat and burned them on my grill. :facepalm:




Go Gators!
 
Chad said:
you could use this same argument to shoot down your view. Take the SEC for example, the SEC only plays other SEC teams and a few cupcake games. So if the SEC is having a down year, you would never know, there is no basis of comparison. Now if Alabama played a big 12 team each year and Florida Played a Pac 12 team and so on, then you would have some kind of way to determine how good the conference is in reference to each other. Alabama beating the snot out of Florida Atlantic is you beating your niece in a bike race and does nothing to prove Bama is the best in the nation. The only decent comparison we get for the SEC is with the ACC because FSU vs UF, Clemson vs SC and Georgia vs GA Tech happens every year. So I can easily say, the SEC is better than the ACC and have something to back it up. You can say the SEC is better than the PAC 12, but there isn't really anything to support that, they never play each other.
Click to expand...



First, I wonder who would be more opposed to something like this, the SEC or the Oregons of the world??

That said, in theory, this makes sense but it just re-draws the line and creates more opportunity for a "weaker" team to go undefeated and theoretically end up 1 or 2. Let's, for the sake of argument, say that the top Big 12 team is as good as the to SEC teams and we use Chad's system. Now, the next best Big 12 (or whatever conference you want to plug in) that didnt get a chance to play against the SEC teams has a better chance of being undefeated than the team that did and maybe even the SEC schools. So you could end up with 2 undefeated teams, for example, that didnt have to play that tougher out of conference schedule. Now, do you still rank the SEC and Big 12 teams with 1-3 losses above the undefeated teams?

I think what the BSC tries to accomplish is to say that a limited number of teams are really eligible for the national title game. Maybe the problem is they dont narrow it down far enough.
 
Johnny N. said:
First, I wonder who would be more opposed to something like this, the SEC or the Oregons of the world??

That said, in theory, this makes sense but it just re-draws the line and creates more opportunity for a "weaker" team to go undefeated and theoretically end up 1 or 2.
Click to expand...

Not once all the conferences have 2 divisions and are setup like the SEC and others are (which is where it is headed). For example, take Bama. Bama is in the SEC West and plays all of the SEC West teams in a season and if they have the best SEC west record, they play in the SEC title game against the best SEC East team. So the 'weaker' SEC team would not go undefeated, they would somewhere along the way play Bama and loose.

This is way too hard to do in a forum :grin:
 
Chad said:
Not once all the conferences have 2 divisions and are setup like the SEC and others are (which is where it is headed). For example, take Bama. Bama is in the SEC West and plays all of the SEC West teams in a season and if they have the best SEC west record, they play in the SEC title game against the best SEC East team. So the 'weaker' SEC team would not go undefeated, they would somewhere along the way play Bama and loose.

This is way too hard to do in a forum :grin:
Click to expand...

What if the best two teams in the country are in the same docs ion of the same conference like last year?
 
reverend1 said:
What if the best two teams in the country are in the same docs ion of the same conference like last year?
Click to expand...


If you believe LSU and Bama were the 2 best teams, then you get over it. Like in the 80s and 90s when the best NFL 2 teams were in the NFC. They never faced each other in the super bowl. I think LSU was better than Bama last year. They went into Bama's house and won, Bama won on a neutral field, but are the national champs, that seems silly, they should have split it like they used to before the BCS.
 
Chad said:
If you believe LSU and Bama were the 2 best teams, then you get over it. Like in the 80s and 90s when the best NFL 2 teams were in the NFC. They never faced each other in the super bowl. I think LSU was better than Bama last year. They went into Bama's house and won, Bama won on a neutral field, but are the national champs, that seems silly, they should have split it like they used to before the BCS.
Click to expand...


I disagree and I couldn't care less about the NFL. For the same reasons as stated above.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top