This could get interesting..... [Archive] - SoonerFans.com Message Boards

humblesooner

12/30/2010, 09:50 AM

Your thread title is right on....this could get interesting.
This will be brought to light even more with the Fiesta Bowl this year.
UConn has no business being in a BCS bowl with 4 losses. Their fans are not excited about spending $1000/person for a BCS bowl trip where they will get spanked.
OU fans have no interest in spending $1,000/person to watch a glorified scrimmage. When is the last time the Orange Bowl (not the BCS CG) had even a slightly interesting matchup?
They have got to make these games more interesting if they expect attendance to remain high.

First thing I would do is advise AQ conferences/schools, that they have to have no more than 3 losses and MUST be ranked in the Top 12/Top 15/Top 20. I really think 2 losses should be the maximum, but I think the second part (ranking) will take care of that issue.

jkjsooner

12/30/2010, 10:01 AM

That can't be true. Leroy said that the AD's get no special treatment from the bowls.

IndySooner

12/30/2010, 10:15 AM

That can't be true. Leroy said that the AD's get no special treatment from the bowls.

Fiesta Bowl had a similar event in Arizona this summer. I wonder if Joe C. is flying around to these "events".

Jason

12/30/2010, 10:20 AM

leroy doesn't think it will work.
That gives me all the more hope it does work. :D

Lawton4Life

12/30/2010, 10:27 AM

leroy doesn't think it will work.

Leroy Jenkins?

sooner518

12/30/2010, 10:32 AM

While its outrageous to see all this outlandish spending, it would be naive to think this stuff still wouldnt go on for a playoff....

IndySooner

12/30/2010, 10:36 AM

While its outrageous to see all this outlandish spending, it would be naive to think this stuff still wouldnt go on for a playoff....

A playoff wouldn't be a "charity" either.

jkjsooner

12/30/2010, 11:02 AM

While its outrageous to see all this outlandish spending, it would be naive to think this stuff still wouldnt go on for a playoff....

These are essentially bribes to keep the current bowl system in favor for the AD's and Presidents. A playoff would not have to engage in this behavior. Maybe the cities would engage in this behavior to ensure the championship game is in their cities but this wouldn't need to be done simply to justify its existence.

humblesooner

12/30/2010, 11:16 AM

These are essentially bribes to keep the current bowl system in favor for the AD's and Presidents. A playoff would not have to engage in this behavior. Maybe the cities would engage in this behavior to ensure the championship game is in their cities but this wouldn't need to be done simply to justify its existence.

Good reply.

85sooners

12/30/2010, 11:42 AM

Playoffs!!

Okie35

12/30/2010, 11:46 AM

Playoffs!!

I don't see it happening while ESPN has the BCS contract.

Leroy Lizard

12/30/2010, 11:52 AM

leroy doesn't think it will work.

It's not a playoff idea.

Leroy Lizard

12/30/2010, 11:53 AM

That can't be true. Leroy said that the AD's get no special treatment from the bowls.

No I didn't. I said that they are used to such special treatment.

Having said that, though, it is irresponsible for university employees to accept such gifts and, at the same time, try to legislate away such gifts for athletes. I agree with the ban on gifts for athletes but college presidents should exert the same self-control. Sure, it's legal but it sets a very poor example. If you can't resist such temptation, why would you expect college athletes to do the same?

Leroy Lizard

12/30/2010, 11:55 AM

A playoff wouldn't be a "charity" either.

I think it would have to be for tax purposes.

OUTrumpet

12/30/2010, 12:39 PM

Leroy Jenkins?

:gary:

Jello Biafra

12/30/2010, 12:40 PM

It's not a playoff idea.

*middle finger* shaddup

IndySooner

12/30/2010, 12:40 PM

I think it would have to be for tax purposes.

I think if someone like Mark Cuban was able to get something done, he wouldn't have to disguise it as a not for profit.

I'm no expert on the financial implications by any means, but I wouldn't think such a system would need to be a charity. Now, if the NCAA ran the system, that would be different.

Again, I could be wrong on this.

Leroy Lizard

12/30/2010, 12:44 PM

*middle finger* shaddup

Sounds like you didn't even bother reading the page before responding. (One of my old habits.)

Jello Biafra

12/30/2010, 12:48 PM

Sounds like you didn't even bother reading the page before responding. (One of my old habits.)

and i didnt...i get bored of reading about playoff ideas and new bowl alignments and crap like that....its all about money and as long as thats what its about, i will continue to support OU and say fugg everyone else.

this NCAA shiite this year has me steemed and i want to go to the headquarters and bury people in the parking lot over it. they are biased i dont care what anyone here or anywhere else says.

Leroy Lizard

12/30/2010, 12:49 PM

I think if someone like Mark Cuban was able to get something done, he wouldn't have to disguise it as a not for profit.

I'm no expert on the financial implications by any means, but I wouldn't think such a system would need to be a charity. Now, if the NCAA ran the system, that would be different.

Again, I could be wrong on this.

It would need to be a 501(C)(3), which is (loosely) considered a charity.

If it is run as a for-profit, then about 40% of the revenues are going to evaporate and all of a sudden the bowl system looks pretty good. An eight-team playoff run as a for-profit would be a severe financial liability, from what I can tell. You are adding three extra games but the IRS is wiping 40% of your profits.

I'm not particularly adept at tax matters though. If I'm wrong, posters in here will line up to correct me. :D

Leroy Lizard

12/30/2010, 12:51 PM

and i didnt...i get bored of reading about playoff ideas and new bowl alignments and crap like that....its all about money and as long as thats what its about, i will continue to support OU and say fugg everyone else.

this NCAA shiite this year has me steemed and i want to go to the headquarters and bury people in the parking lot over it. they are biased i dont care what anyone here or anywhere else says.

They're not biased, just (at times) spineless. The NCAA has no great love for Auburn. Why should they?

Jello Biafra

12/30/2010, 12:57 PM

They're not biased, just (at times) spineless. The NCAA has no great love for Auburn. Why should they?

they shouldnt have love for anyone (why should they?)

Leroy Lizard

12/30/2010, 01:11 PM

they shouldnt have love for anyone (why should they?)

And I don't think they do. The easy thing to do is to shout "favoritism!" at every turn. We all thought USC was going to skate on by because they were the darlings of the NCAA. We were sure that the NCAA was dragging things along because they wanted the whole thing to blow over. In the end, USC got hammered about as bad as anyone could have imagined, which they mostly deserved because of their arrogant approach to compliance. And OU, in the end, got treated pretty fairly by the NCAA because of its willingness to cooperate.

The problem with Auburn was the NCAA's unwillingness to put the hurts on a school that had yet to be found guilty of infractions. But Cam Newton should have been ruled ineligible to play regardless.

I'm not sure what happened with tOSU. Again, I think the NCAA simply didn't want to hurt the appeal of the bowl game, even though it should have.

IMO, the NCAA simply blew it in regards to Auburn and tOSU, but it wasn't due to favoritism.

Caboose

12/30/2010, 01:16 PM

Oh look, X happened so therefore a playoff would "work".

Makes sense.

Jello Biafra

12/30/2010, 01:36 PM

And I don't think they do. The easy thing to do is to shout "favoritism!" at every turn. We all thought USC was going to skate on by because they were the darlings of the NCAA. We were sure that the NCAA was dragging things along because they wanted the whole thing to blow over. In the end, USC got hammered about as bad as anyone could have imagined, which they mostly deserved because of their arrogant approach to compliance. And OU, in the end, got treated pretty fairly by the NCAA because of its willingness to cooperate.

The problem with Auburn was the NCAA's unwillingness to put the hurts on a school that had yet to be found guilty of infractions. But Cam Newton should have been ruled ineligible to play regardless.

I'm not sure what happened with tOSU. Again, I think the NCAA simply didn't want to hurt the appeal of the bowl game, even though it should have.

IMO, the NCAA simply blew it in regards to Auburn and tOSU, but it wasn't due to favoritism.

no it totally was....oddly enough, both teams are involved in a bcs bowl game and one of the two involved is in the national championship.....

lesee dad says "in order for my son to come play for you, he needs 180k"....but everyone expects that he wasnt paid a dime at auburn? that investiagtion went waaaay too fast.

annnnndddd lesseeee you guys are guilty and you will pay dearly for it.....(next year to the tune of a 5 game suspension. we'll let you play in your bowl game however... merry christmas, happy new year)

there is a florida gator olineman that was reportedly paid 100k between the SEC championship and the bowl game last year and youve heard little to nothing out of it... but all florida will get out of it (suposedly) is that it will have to vacate the bowl win....

a Georgia player may have met with an agent in miami for a party but claims he has never been in miami in his life....he not only gets a 3 game suspension but loses his apeal as well...

justin blackmon goes to a dallas game to watch a player who had been suspended for lying to ncaa investigators, gets picked up for DUI in a truck that doesnt belong to him and nothing but a one game team suspension...i know what you're thinking. and it is not beyond the realm of possibility that he happened to be going to the game to meet dez and possibly meet dezs agent. but nothing was looked into at all. why?

ou reports violations for two individuals for improper benefits and both are immediately punted from the team and we get put on probation blah blah blah

Jello Biafra

12/30/2010, 01:40 PM

The problem with Auburn was the NCAA's unwillingness to put the hurts on a school that had yet to be found guilty of infractions. But Cam Newton should have been ruled ineligible to play regardless.

agreed....but they were being investigated and should have been told something to the effect that you could be forfeitting.

dez bryant was playing WHILE he was being investigated and when he was found guilty of lying, he only had to serve a suspension after that date....so he was only guilty AFTER the conclusion was found...not before....

Leroy Lizard

12/30/2010, 01:54 PM

no it totally was....oddly enough, both teams are involved in a bcs bowl game and one of the two involved is in the national championship.....

That isn't quite what I thought you meant by "favoritism."

lesee dad says "in order for my son to come play for you, he needs 180k"....but everyone expects that he wasnt paid a dime at auburn? that investiagtion went waaaay too fast.

The investigation is not over. They just had to make a quick ruling on Cam's eligibility to play in the bowl game. I suspect that Auburn will end up in big trouble when this is all said and done.

annnnndddd lesseeee you guys are guilty and you will pay dearly for it.....(next year to the tune of a 5 game suspension. we'll let you play in your bowl game however... merry christmas, happy new year)

I don't disagree that the NCAA blew it here.

there is a florida gator olineman that was reportedly paid 100k between the SEC championship and the bowl game last year and youve heard little to nothing out of it... but all florida will get out of it (suposedly) is that it will have to vacate the bowl win....

a Georgia player may have met with an agent in miami for a party but claims he has never been in miami in his life....he not only gets a 3 game suspension but loses his apeal as well...

justin blackmon goes to a dallas game to watch a player who had been suspended for lying to ncaa investigators, gets picked up for DUI in a truck that doesnt belong to him and nothing but a one game team suspension...i know what you're thinking. and it is not beyond the realm of possibility that he happened to be going to the game to meet dez and possibly meet dezs agent. but nothing was looked into at all. why?

ou reports violations for two individuals for improper benefits and both are immediately punted from the team and we get put on probation blah blah blah

Your homerism is showing. After all, OSU fans could point to AD's Lexus and say the same things. And they will claim that OU was not punished severely enough for the Big Red Sports incident. I think they're wrong -- OU got pretty much what it deserved in the end.

Dez Bryant is no pariah as far as the NCAA is concerned. He lied to the NCAA and was punished, but he is on no "Don't Touch" list. So there is nothing wrong with Blackmon going to Dallas and partying with him. (They were teammates, after all.) And the NCAA doesn't care about DUIs no matter which team is involved.

But with the exception of tOSU and Auburn, the NCAA has been pretty even-handed. In fact, their severe punishment of USC was a welcome surprise. (I don't know much about the Florida and Georgia situations so I can't comment. But I don't think SEC fans consider the NCAA a friend of their conference.)

Jello Biafra

12/30/2010, 02:06 PM

im not going for or against OU in this argument. im arguing against the "influences" the NCAA may be under during thier investigations....who gives a shiite about AUBURN??? fugg them, if they did something illegal and paid for a championship, they deserve to be beat....

you dont think anyone associated with a pro should be looked at closely? why was reggie bush hammered on by the ncaa when usc was under investigation? one incident was him calling recruits for pete carroll after he was drafted by the aints.....because Dez wasn't the number one pick, he shouldn't be looked at for possibly the same thing? i mean, all agents are being looked at for the boo blake issue....you think dez's agent isnt capable of coming up with something like that?

think about it....a ticket to the game
a truck he didnt own
during the season
on a week night
what business could he have possibly had making that 4 hour trip with class and practice looming the next day?
then he gets stopped speeding and arrested for DUI if hes not geting paid, where would he come up with the kind of cash it took him to get out of that? hell some of our players are being arrested because they can't (or wont) pay parking tickets.

you telling me NCAA would care more or less about a MAC team than a Big 10 team when it comes to dishing out punishment? why? depending on how big the payout of the bowl game is? i'd bet cash money on that.

jkjsooner

12/30/2010, 02:12 PM

Oh look, X happened so therefore a playoff would "work".

Makes sense.

Nobody claimed that this has anything to do with the viability of a playoff.

It is true that the group who released this information are a pro-playoff group but I guarantee you they did not make the following assertion:

Because the bowl systems are corrupt a playoff system would work.

You made up an argument your opponent did not make and then mocked them for it. Kinda makes you look like a fool.

The point (as I see it) is that the schools administrations have long been in favor of the bowls and we're starting to see exactly why that is the case - that the bowls have been buying off the AD's and presidents.

Jello Biafra

12/30/2010, 02:15 PM

Nobody claimed that this has anything to do with the viability of a playoff.

The point (as I see it) is that the schools administrations have long been in favor of the bowls and we're starting to see exactly why that is the case - that the bowls have been buying off the AD's and presidents.

ding ding ding winner winner chicken dinner....by 2015 we'll have 55 bowls and 4-7 teams will be hitting each other like a couple of wet socks.

Leroy Lizard

12/30/2010, 02:21 PM

you dont think anyone associated with a pro should be looked at closely?

No, not unless the pro is acting as an agent. Which is why the Dez Bryant/Deion Sanders connection was investigated.

Again, Dez was a teammate of Blackmon's and played the same position. They are likely close friends.

why was reggie bush hammered on by the ncaa when usc was under investigation? one incident was him calling recruits for pete carroll after he was drafted by the aints.....because Dez wasn't the number one pick, he shouldn't be looked at for possibly the same thing? i mean, all agents are being looked at for the boo blake issue....you think dez's agent isnt capable of coming up with something like that?

If Blackmon went to Dez' agent's party, that would be worth looking into. But is that what happened? Dez' agent was possibly in attendance, but the NCAA does not forbid players from associating with agents; they just can't make any deals with them.

Sooner or later, we're going to hear about a current Sooner attending a party of a former Sooner playing in the NFL. If we work up a commotion over the Dez Bryant/Justin Blackmon party, what are we going to say then? I suggest avoiding situations that force us to become major hypocrites.

Besides, for the NCAA to investigate every party attended by a player would require an army. The NCAA simply doesn't have the manpower.

think about it....a ticket to the game
a truck he didnt own
during the season
on a week night
what business could he have possibly had making that 4 hour trip with class and practice looming the next day?

For one, Justin could simply be a rotten student. As far as the ticket is concerned, who knows? I don't know much about his finances or the cost of getting into a Cowboys game. Can one get into the game for $100?

Exactly who owned the truck?

then he gets stopped speeding and arrested for DUI if hes not geting paid, where would he come up with the kind of cash it took him to get out of that? hell some of our players are being arrested because they can't (or wont) pay parking tickets.

I have no idea what fines have been levied against Blackmon, nor do I know what his personal finances are like. Could his parents have paid for it? I honestly don't know. I'm certainly not going to simply assume that Blackmon is violating NCAA rules without this knowledge.

you telling me NCAA would care more or less about a MAC team than a Big 10 team when it comes to dishing out punishment? why? depending on how big the payout of the bowl game is? i'd bet cash money on that.

Why would the NCAA care about the bowl game payout? Not denying it, but could you explain the connection?

Jello Biafra

12/30/2010, 02:25 PM

Leroy Lizard

12/30/2010, 02:30 PM

The point (as I see it) is that the schools administrations have long been in favor of the bowls and we're starting to see exactly why that is the case - that the bowls have been buying off the AD's and presidents.

For the bowls to buy off college presidents they would have to do far more than simply provide free cruises. As I said before, these guys typically have large expense accounts and they belong to numerous associations that provide such junkets.

I know this firsthand, having been to functions they attend. I remember one all-expenses-paid trip to Napa on a wine-tasting/dinner tour. The university paid our dues to the organization and the junkets were included as part of our membership privileges.

However, I think it is wrong for them to go on such bowl committee cruises because it sets a bad example. (And I'm not sure they even go on the cruises, although they have certainly been invited. I wouldn't bet against it though.)

Leroy Lizard

12/30/2010, 02:31 PM

simply saying tressel and company running to the NCAA and begging for leniency because they are playing in the sugar bowl would have a little more impact than the coach from miami (oh) doing the same thing because he is going to the bangkok cream of som yung guy bowl

That is certainly the way the NCAA made it look. I don't think that is the reality, but the NCAA needs to learn that perception is often more important than reality.

SoonerLB

12/30/2010, 02:34 PM

Originally Posted by jkjsooner
These are essentially bribes to keep the current bowl system in favor for the AD's and Presidents. A playoff would not have to engage in this behavior. Maybe the cities would engage in this behavior to ensure the championship game is in their cities but this wouldn't need to be done simply to justify its existence.

Originally Posted by jkjsooner
Nobody claimed that this has anything to do with the viability of a playoff.

The point (as I see it) is that the schools administrations have long been in favor of the bowls and we're starting to see exactly why that is the case - that the bowls have been buying off the AD's and presidents.

Bullseye jkj! The current bowl system is about money, a playoff system would be about a TRUE National Champion! If charity is an issue, then I would suggest these fat-cat bowl committee chairman forego their lucrative salaries and donate their time! What could be more charitable than that? ;)

Caboose

12/30/2010, 03:09 PM

Bullseye jkj! The current bowl system is about money, a playoff system would be about a TRUE National Champion! If charity is an issue, then I would suggest these fat-cat bowl committee chairman forego their lucrative salaries and donate their time! What could be more charitable than that? ;)

No it wouldn't be. It would be about being "neat" and "fun to watch" and "exciting".... all of which are valid reasons to want a playoff. But a playoff wouldn't decide a "TRUE champion" and it wouldn't "decide it on the field" any more or better than our current system.

Jello Biafra

12/30/2010, 03:13 PM

MeMyself&Me

12/30/2010, 03:24 PM

Leroy Lizard

12/30/2010, 03:34 PM

Leroy Lizard

12/30/2010, 03:40 PM

uhhh why not? win or go home is pretty motivating to those who want to win a crystal ball yo...

This is one of the reasons why I oppose a playoff. You have (say) 16 teams, only one of which will end the season satisfied. I like the current bowl system because there are so many opportunities for teams to end on a winning note.

Case in point: I was quite happy and pleased at the end of the season after we beat Washington in the Rose Bowl. But thinking about the 1988 basketball season in which we lost in the title game is just miserable. And every season we have had since would have left me feeling the same if I bothered to pay attention to our basketball team.

If OU beats UConn, I will be very happy. If OU had got into the playoffs and lost, it would be a sucky way to end the season.

silverwheels

12/30/2010, 03:58 PM

You mean Washington State in the Rose Bowl.

silverwheels

12/30/2010, 03:59 PM

This.

A playoff is just a different way of deciding a champion. What we have is so unique (and a playoff isn't anything unique) that it should be preserved.

Not a good enough reason to keep what we have, but that's just my opinion.

Jello Biafra

12/30/2010, 04:04 PM

This is one of the reasons why I oppose a playoff. You have (say) 16 teams, only one of which will end the season satisfied. I like the current bowl system because there are so many opportunities for teams to end on a winning note.

Case in point: I was quite happy and pleased at the end of the season after we beat Washington in the Rose Bowl. But thinking about the 1988 basketball season in which we lost in the title game is just miserable. And every season we have had since would have left me feeling the same if I bothered to pay attention to our basketball team.

If OU beats UConn, I will be very happy. If OU had got into the playoffs and lost, it would be a sucky way to end the season.

well, maybe we can give out blue ribbons to the second third and fourth place teams....

dude really? im pissed for all of a week and then move on....it wasnt our year. get better and try again.

usaosooner

12/30/2010, 04:06 PM

awesome.

Jello Biafra

12/30/2010, 04:07 PM

i was mixng well with you, vibing and diggin almost all you were posting and then all of the sudden you starting secreting vaginal fluid from every orrifice in your body.....

peace...dork

Caboose

12/30/2010, 04:08 PM

uhhh why not? win or go home is pretty motivating to those who want to win a crystal ball yo...

How does that "decide it on the field" or "decide a TRUE champion"? "Win or go home" isnt even related to those two statements.

Leroy Lizard

12/30/2010, 04:15 PM

well, maybe we can give out blue ribbons to the second third and fourth place teams....

dude really? im pissed for all of a week and then move on....it wasnt our year. get better and try again.

You could say that my feelings about end-of-the-year losses are illogical. I admit that. But it makes no difference; losing the last game of the year to me is a big downer.

I don't have an ounce of good feeling about our 1988 basketball season. I should, just like I should feel great about our 2004 football season. But I don't. Do you?

Fran Tarkenton once said that there is nothing worse than playing in a Super Bowl and losing. Sure he SHOULDN'T feel that way. But he does. With a playoff, nearly every year will end with the same ****ty feeling. Screw that.

Jello Biafra

12/30/2010, 04:16 PM

How does that "decide it on the field" or "decide a TRUE champion"? "Win or go home" isnt even related to those two statements.

WTF??? you play until you lose....meaning you win, move to the next game. win again, move to the next game. hello?

Jello Biafra

12/30/2010, 04:20 PM

You could say that my feelings about end-of-the-year losses are illogical. I admit that. But it makes no difference; losing the last game of the year to me is a big downer.

I don't have an ounce of good feeling about our 1988 basketball season. I should, just like I should feel great about our 2004 football season. But I don't. Do you?

Fran Tarkenton once said that there is nothing worse than playing in a Super Bowl and losing. Sure he SHOULDN'T feel that way. But he does. With a playoff, nearly every year will end with the same ****ty feeling. Screw that.

whatev....

thats like saying you would like to be the manager of your local McDs but not good enough at management so you talk the owner into being the drive through manager or some shiite. lol

everyone wins AND loses....

i would love for the bears to have gone undefeated in 85.....

i would have loved to won the state championship my junior year.....

i would have loved to finished my career at OU and had a chance to at least play there....

i would loved to have won the friggin lottery last saturday night....

Leroy Lizard

12/30/2010, 04:21 PM

WTF??? you play until you lose....meaning you win, move to the next game. win again, move to the next game. hello?

Suppose OU plays (say) Nebbish and beats them. In the same round, tOSU beats Clemson. Clemson and Nebbish are out, but you cannot say that tOSU is better than Nebbish, because tOSU didn't play them. If Nebbish had an opportunity to play tOSU instead, they might have won.

To say that a playoff truly decides a true champion is to assume that the law of transcendence applies in football, but we know it doesn't. At least that is how the argument goes.

Jello Biafra

12/30/2010, 04:23 PM

Fran Tarkenton once said that there is nothing worse than playing in a Super Bowl and losing.

billy tubbs said something to effect if you dont like us trouncing your azz, get better.

you lose, do your best to get back there next year.

do you really think these high caliber athletes dig going to friggin san diego to play in the who gives a shiite bowl when they could settle the early season miscues by going out and running the table in a BCS tourney?

Leroy Lizard

12/30/2010, 04:23 PM

whatev....

thats like saying you would like to be the manager of your local McDs but not good enough at management so you talk the owner into being the drive through manager or some shiite. lol

Your example is convoluted and irrelevant. This isn't business, but sports competition.

The rest of your statements make no sense whatsoever. What was your point?

silverwheels

12/30/2010, 04:24 PM

To say that a playoff truly decides a true champion is to assume that the law of transcendence applies in football, but we know it doesn't. At least that is how the argument goes.

Still happens anyway, even without a playoff.

Jello Biafra

12/30/2010, 04:25 PM

Suppose OU plays (say) Nebbish and beats them. In the same round, tOSU beats Clemson. Clemson and Nebbish are out, but you cannot say that tOSU is better than Nebbish, because tOSU didn't play them. If Nebbish had an opportunity to play tOSU instead, they might have won.

To say that a playoff truly decides a true champion is to assume that the law of transcendence applies in football, but we know it doesn't. At least that is how the argument goes.

so let the fagtags from stillwater plays the clemsen tigers and decide who gets to clean the shiite off the commode bowl then....i dont care about anyone but getting the opportunity to PROVE WITHOUT A DOUBT....

our NC in 2000 was a sham. you really think we were better than the other 100+ teams in the nation? i would say we were but not all of them. thats why they call it the "mythical" national championship

Leroy Lizard

12/30/2010, 04:26 PM

billy tubbs said something to effect if you dont like us trouncing your azz, get better.

you lose, do your best to get back there next year.

Sure, we know that. But this has nothing to do with the argument.

do you really think these high caliber athletes dig going to friggin san diego to play in the who gives a shiite bowl when they could settle the early season miscues by going out and running the table in a BCS tourney?

Sure, they would feel better IF they run the table. But what if they don't? Would they come back happier losing in a playoff game or winning a bowl game?

We all know how they SHOULD feel if they were robots. But being human beings, how would they truly feel?

Caboose

12/30/2010, 04:27 PM

WTF??? you play until you lose....meaning you win, move to the next game. win again, move to the next game. hello?

Yes I get that but what does THAT have to do with deciding it on the field and determining a true champion?

Caboose

12/30/2010, 04:29 PM

so let the fagtags from stillwater plays the clemsen tigers and decide who gets to clean the shiite off the commode bowl then....i dont care about anyone but getting the opportunity to PROVE WITHOUT A DOUBT....

our NC in 2000 was a sham. you really think we were better than the other 100+ teams in the nation? i would say we were but not all of them. thats why they call it the "mythical" national championship

This is all that needs be said.

Take a good look playoff people. This is your representation.

Jello Biafra

12/30/2010, 04:30 PM

Your example is convoluted and irrelevant. This isn't business, but sports competition.

The rest of your statements make no sense whatsoever. What was your point?

its not irrelevant you thick motha f*%Jkin tard

if you arent a better manager than the current one, you dont get the extra 1.35 an hour....

my point is, i think i can beat you unconsious....will you let me or will you fight back?

you beat up jethro from down the street who beat up steve who i smoked like a christmas ham.... whos the better fighter?

Leroy Lizard

12/30/2010, 04:32 PM

so let the fagtags from stillwater plays the clemsen tigers and decide who gets to clean the shiite off the commode bowl then....i dont care about anyone but getting the opportunity to PROVE WITHOUT A DOUBT....

Okay, so OSU wins. Now what would that prove? My argument still stands... unless OSU gets an opportunity to play round-robin against all the teams in the playoffs, there would be no way of knowing whether they were the best team in the country. Setting up a consolation game does nothing to settle the argument.

our NC in 2000 was a sham. you really think we were better than the other 100+ teams in the nation? i would say we were but not all of them. thats why they call it the "mythical" national championship

Okay, let's use your example.

Suppose the 2001 Orange Bowl was a sham and the BCS title was equally worthless. Then why are we proud of that team and title? Why aren't we unhappy that we didn't get to play Washington or Miami to settle the issue? I was ecstatic at the end of the Orange Bowl game. You weren't?

You proved my point: Fan happiness has more to do with going out as a winner and less to do with settling the "true champion" issue.

Caboose

12/30/2010, 04:34 PM

its not irrelevant you thick motha f*%Jkin tard

if you arent a better manager than the current one, you dont get the extra 1.35 an hour....

my point is, i think i can beat you unconsious....will you let me or will you fight back?

you beat up jethro from down the street who beat up steve who i smoked like a christmas ham.... whos the better fighter?

Your argument is really compelling. I have as of now converted to a mindless catchphrase-wielding playoff zombie. I'll stop thinking about it, and just pretend it will work. You have convinced me.

Leroy Lizard

12/30/2010, 04:34 PM

silverwheels

12/30/2010, 04:35 PM

Anti-playoff people are just as guilty of using mindless catchphrases.

Jello Biafra

12/30/2010, 04:37 PM

Sure, we know that. But this has nothing to do with the argument.

why doesnt it? you give everything you have. you win or lose. if you did your best, screw it we couldn't get it done.

Sure, they would feel better IF they run the table. But what if they don't? Would they come back happier losing in a playoff game or winning a bowl game?

see above

We all know how they SHOULD feel if they were robots. But being human beings, how would they truly feel

its not my place to say...its also not my place to give a crap....you either have it or you don't. if it aint your year, it aint your year.

you think we could have beaten bama last year? i do.

Caboose

12/30/2010, 04:39 PM

Anti-playoff people are just as guilty of using mindless catchphrases.

Like what?

Leroy Lizard

12/30/2010, 04:41 PM

But Jello's logic is truly psychedelic.

Suppose the one street fighter is named Sooner. And Sooner goes out and just beats the living **** out of some arrogant jackass named Red Raider. Later, Red Raider turns around and beats up on another local yokel named Tex.

According to Jello's brilliant logic, Sooner should have no problem with Tex. After all, if Sooner is clearly tougher than Raider, and Raider is clearly tougher than Tex, how could Sooner not possibly beat the crap out of Tex? But we all know this logic fails, as was proven two years ago.

Sure, they would feel better IF they run the table. But what if they don't? Would they come back happier losing in a playoff game or winning a bowl game?

Screw that "see above" bull****, answer the question.

why doesnt it? you give everything you have. you win or lose. if you did your best, screw it we couldn't get it done.

This isn't about whether a team deserved to lose, but rather whether the fans will be pleased in the end. C'mon, Jello. Work with us here.

silverwheels

12/30/2010, 04:41 PM

Like what?

"Every game matters", when that is not the case. Catchphrases in general are lame.

Jello Biafra

12/30/2010, 04:42 PM

Okay, so OSU wins. Now what would that prove? My argument still stands... unless OSU gets an opportunity to play round-robin against all the teams in the playoffs, there would be no way of knowing whether they were the best team in the country. Setting up a consolation game does nothing to settle the argument.

Okay, let's use your example.

Suppose the 2001 Orange Bowl was a sham and the BCS title was equally worthless. Then why are we proud of that team and title? Why aren't we unhappy that we didn't get to play Washington or Miami to settle the issue? I was ecstatic at the end of the Orange Bowl game. You weren't?

You proved my point: Fan happiness has more to do with going out as a winner and less to do with settling the "true champion" issue.

phuck the fans...it has zero to do with the fans. it has to do with the players and the rest of the team. if i were on that team, i could give less than 2 squirrels fuggin in a sock what you thought about our win or loss...

thats the difference between football players who are typically alpha types and those who sit around analyzing feelings and the temperature of how everyone feelings are doing.

Jello Biafra

12/30/2010, 04:44 PM

But Jello's logic is truly psychedelic.

Suppose the one street fighter is named Sooner. And Sooner goes out and just beats the living **** out of some arrogant jackass named Red Raider. Later, Red Raider turns around and beats up on another local yokel named Tex.

According to Jello's brilliant logic, Sooner should have no problem with Tex. After all, if Sooner is clearly tougher than Raider, and Raider is clearly tougher than Tex, how could Sooner not possibly beat the crap out of Tex? But we all know this logic fails, as was proven two years ago.

Screw that "see above" bull****, answer the question.

point is, we won it why? because we beat the man who beat the man....no way to prove it....ONE way to fix it, make sure all three of those teams are in a playoff scenario for all the marbles

Leroy Lizard

12/30/2010, 04:47 PM

phuck the fans...it has zero to do with the fans. it has to do with the players and the rest of the team. if i were on that team, i could give less than 2 squirrels fuggin in a sock what you thought about our win or loss...

thats the difference between football players who are typically alpha types and those who sit around analyzing feelings and the temperature of how everyone feelings are doing.

So why are WE arguing about this if only the players' feelings matter? Let them argue about the playoffs so we can concentrate on BBQing and kinky sex.

jkjsooner

12/30/2010, 04:48 PM

No it wouldn't be. It would be about being "neat" and "fun to watch" and "exciting".... all of which are valid reasons to want a playoff. But a playoff wouldn't decide a "TRUE champion" and it wouldn't "decide it on the field" any more or better than our current system.

In football we have about 110 teams and each team plays only 12 games. Among these 12 games, usually only four are played outside of one's own conference. There just isn't a lot of interplay among the top teams to really determine who is more worthy of playing in the championship game. With this in mind, I'd say you are wrong. A tournament would come a lot closer to deciding it on the field.

Let's assume the SEC is loaded with top notch teams but because of parity in the league each top team ends up with at least one loss. Meanwhile, weak teams from the ACC and Big East end up undefeated. Did they really justify their position "on the field"? Maybe they did. Maybe the SEC isn't as good as we originally thought. Maybe they didn't. Maybe the SEC was just that incredible. The problem is that with so few out of conference games amongst so many teams there really isn't a way to know - especially if you have to determine this before the bowls.

Caboose

12/30/2010, 04:48 PM

"Every game matters", when that is not the case. Catchphrases in general are lame.

Every game does matter in our current system. Your record, your poll ranking your computer ranking and consequently your BCS standing... are all based on the cumulative results of EVERY game you play. 0-12 or 9-3 is just as meaningful as 13-0 in our current system. In a playoff they are not.

Jello Biafra

12/30/2010, 04:49 PM

lets go this way, say we blow out uconn...we win and now whut?

woohoo were fiesta bowl champs. could we beat the rest of the bcs field? i dunno but id like the opportunity to try. wouldnt you? or would you rather take your fiesta bowl tshirt and hat and be changing the oil in your car three years from now in them?

how bout this. woohoo we wont the fiesta bowl! yay we're number 8! (because we were afforeded the opportunity to beat anyone else)

thats why the friggin NIT is stupid...so you win it...woohoo we're the number 65 team in the nation!

Jello Biafra

12/30/2010, 04:49 PM

So why are WE arguing about this if only the players' feelings matter? Let them argue about the playoffs so we can concentrate on BBQing and kinky sex.

you borught all this up schlong sniffer.

stoopified

12/30/2010, 04:50 PM

leroy doesn't think Fixed :)

Leroy Lizard

12/30/2010, 04:50 PM

point is, we won it why? because we beat the man who beat the man...

... who beat us.

Yeah, we really settled it there, didn't we? :rolleyes:

Your street fighter analogy is horrid, and this proves it.

Jello Biafra

12/30/2010, 04:51 PM

silverwheels

12/30/2010, 04:52 PM

Every game does matter in our current system. Your record, your poll ranking your computer ranking and consequently your BCS standing... are all based on the cumulative results of EVERY game you play. 0-12 or 9-3 is just as meaningful as 13-0 in our current system. In a playoff they are not.

Assuming you're from an AQ conference. The best TCU (or Boise) could have hoped for before the season was a non-title BCS bowl game. They were eliminated from playing for the national title before the season even started because of voter perception. We've seen it before when a non-AQ team was the only undefeated team in the country and wasn't in the title game. When 12-0 for one team does not equal 12-0 for another team, every game does not matter.

Also, once you're eliminated from the national title race, do your games really matter? At least in that context? No.

Caboose

12/30/2010, 04:55 PM

In football we have about 110 teams and each team plays only 12 games. Among these 12 games, usually only four are played outside of one's own conference. There just isn't a lot of interplay among the top teams to really determine who is more worthy of playing in the championship game. With this in mind, I'd say you are wrong. A tournament would come a lot closer to deciding it on the field.

Let's assume the SEC is loaded with top notch teams but because of parity in the league each top team ends up with at least one loss. Meanwhile, weak teams from the ACC and Big East end up undefeated. Did they really justify their position "on the field"? Maybe they did. Maybe the SEC isn't as good as we originally thought. Maybe they didn't. Maybe the SEC was just that incredible. The problem is that with so few out of conference games amongst so many teams there really isn't a way to know - especially if you have to determine this before the bowls.

I agree with everything you said except the part I bolded.
There are an infinite number of example scenario's that one could use to make a point one way or another. The fact remains though that unless all teams participating in a playoff are equally deserving of being named the Champion prior to playoff then it fails to "decide it on the field". As we see in every other sport, the post season tournament simply awards whatever team gets hot in the post season and wins a few games in a row with a championship for the ENTIRE season. It doesn't tell us who the best team that season was... it tells us who the best team that post-season was. That is opposite of what we want.

Jello Biafra

12/30/2010, 04:55 PM

Leroy Lizard

12/30/2010, 04:56 PM

lets go this way, say we blow out uconn...we win and now whut?

The fans feel great. The players feel great. The fans meet the players at the airport. We get presented a trophy. We unveil the trophy in the Switzer Center.

We end the season on a positive note. THAT is what happens. To suggest that the fans don't care about the outcome because there is nothing to feel good about if the team wins is pure baloney. Give me a break.

I saw Army win today and the fans were ecstatic. Arizona fans rushed the field two years ago when they won the Copper Bowl. Why? According to your argument, the fans should have just shrugged and went home.

The reality is that bowl victories are exciting for fans and clearly leave everyone associated with the winning team in a great mood. To suggest otherwise is to deny reality. Which you'll try.

Jello Biafra

12/30/2010, 04:58 PM

Caboose

12/30/2010, 04:58 PM

and they can in a playoff scenario too...your seeding will matter. you WANT to be the number one seed so you can face bottom to top all the way up. noone can dispute your dominance.

Wrong. Because in a playoff the 9-3 team gets the same opportunity to be the champion as the 13-0 team. You are therefore saying that 9-3 is just as good as 13-0 when everyone knows that is false.

If the 9-3 team beats the 13-0 team in the first round of the playoff, it didnt decide anything on the field...nor it make a situation where no one can dispute the 9-3 teams dominance...

13-1 is BETTER than 10-3. Isnt it? So then why did your playoff tell us the opposite? It didnt decide anything (unless you just blindly accept what you are told, like a zombie).. it just made more controversy.

Again, reference the Giants/Patriots Superbowl from a couple of years ago. 10-6 as good as 16-0. by allowing both teams into the playoff, you made 16-0 meaningless. After the playoffs, 14-6 wasnt better than 18-1. Yet we had to watch the 14-6 team be crowned champion anyway. So what was proved on the field? How was a true champion decided?

Leroy Lizard

12/30/2010, 04:58 PM

I agree with everything you said except the part I bolded.
There are an infinite number of example scenario's that one could use to make a point one way or another. The fact remains though that unless all teams participating in a playoff are equally deserving of being named the Champion prior to playoff then it fails to "decide it on the field". As we see in every other sport, the post season tournament simply awards whatever team gets hot in the post season and wins a few games in a row with a championship for the ENTIRE season. It doesn't tell us who the best team that season was... it tells us who the best team that post-season was. That is opposite of what we want.

Consider that if we had a playoff this year, there is a strong possibility that UConn would be playing in it. How would that decide it on the field if teams are invited to participate having lost four games in the regular season playing a weak schedule?

Caboose

12/30/2010, 04:58 PM

roflmao you really think a 6-6 washington is a good match up with nebraska?

No, and its irrelevant to the discussion. The BCS didnt give us Washington Vs Nebraska.

Jello Biafra

12/30/2010, 04:59 PM

The fans feel great. The players feel great. The fans meet the players at the airport. We get presented a trophy. We unveil the trophy in the Switzer Center.

We end the season on a positive note. THAT is what happens. To suggest that the fans don't care about the outcome because there is nothing to feel good about if the team wins is pure baloney. Give me a break.

I saw Army win today and the fans were ecstatic. Arizona fans rushed the field two years ago when they won the Copper Bowl. Why? According to your argument, the fans should have just shrugged and went home.

The reality is that bowl victories are exciting for fans and clearly leave everyone associated with the winning team in a great mood. To suggest otherwise is to deny reality. Which you'll try.

o the fans will love it. im not denying that. the players want to prove where they stand. ya know what...im done. not going to argue with someone who has spent more time sniffing a jock than wearing one.

Caboose

12/30/2010, 05:03 PM

Assuming you're from an AQ conference. The best TCU (or Boise) could have hoped for before the season was a non-title BCS bowl game. They were eliminated from playing for the national title before the season even started because of voter perception. We've seen it before when a non-AQ team was the only undefeated team in the country and wasn't in the title game. When 12-0 for one team does not equal 12-0 for another team, every game does not matter.

No one said the BCS is perfect. And no playoff proposal I have seen will fix the problem of exclusion, it will only make it worse.

Also, once you're eliminated from the national title race, do your games really matter? At least in that context? No.

Yes. Every game matters. Every game you play calculates into where you stand in the BCS. So for a 6 and 6 team, all 6 of your wins mattered and so did all 6 of your losses. You are number 50 in the BCS and wont get to play for the championship? Well that's because of your record and your poll average and your computer rankings.... and ALL of those were determined by what you did in the games you played.

Leroy Lizard

12/30/2010, 05:05 PM

o the fans will love it. im not denying that. the players want to prove where they stand. ya know what...im done. not going to argue with someone who has spent more time sniffing a jock than wearing one.

You're not playing FBS football, so your opinions don't matter any more than mine.

My point stands: With a playoff, the fans/coaches/players from only one program end the season on a happy note. With the bowl system, the fans of more than a dozen programs feel good about the outcome. You can't deny that reality.

Jello Biafra

12/30/2010, 05:05 PM

Irrelevant to the discussion.

how is it irrelevant? they got matched up by a bowl commitee. washington will go out and fight because they have something to prove. you think nebraska is highly motivated to play a 6-6 team?

they would be if they knew two 9-3 teams were waiting them if they win.

as it stands, they expect to go out and win a game against a team that is ranked somewhere in the mid 30s. so, they go out and win...woohoo we're number 30??? there are teams out there right now sitting at home with better records than the ones playing in these games but they are automatic qualifiers so....

Leroy Lizard

12/30/2010, 05:08 PM

how is it irrelevant? they got matched up by a bowl commitee. washington will go out and fight because they have something to prove. you think nebraska is highly motivated to play a 6-6 team?

If Nebbish wins the fans and team will still be happier than if Nebbish played in a playoff game and lost.

Logically, Nebbishers should be happier with the playoff loss. But that isn't human nature. No one likes going out a loser because... they're losers.

jkjsooner

12/30/2010, 05:09 PM

This is one of the reasons why I oppose a playoff. You have (say) 16 teams, only one of which will end the season satisfied. I like the current bowl system because there are so many opportunities for teams to end on a winning note.

Why don't we skip bowl games and just give out participation trophies? Your treading really close to that level.

Case in point: I was quite happy and pleased at the end of the season after we beat Washington in the Rose Bowl. But thinking about the 1988 basketball season in which we lost in the title game is just miserable. And every season we have had since would have left me feeling the same if I bothered to pay attention to our basketball team.

I'd much rather have played in a playoff and lost in the championship game than beat WSU in the Rose Bowl. The immediate impact would be more devastating but with time the feeling of accomplishment would be greater in the playoff scenario.

In 2002 would you rather play in some mediocre basketball equivalent of a bowl game and win or lose to Indiana in the Final Four?

The Kansas game is a different situation. We were a much better team than Kansas. We beat them handily twice that year. That is why that loss hurts so much.

And before someone points out that this shows a flaw in playoff tournament (something I disagree with) I submit to you that in any reasonable playoff system proposed the football equivalent of Kansas in '88 would not have made the playoffs.

If OU beats UConn, I will be very happy. If OU had got into the playoffs and lost, it would be a sucky way to end the season.

Again, I disagree. Either way, that sure is a wimpy way to look at it.

silverwheels

12/30/2010, 05:10 PM

No one said the BCS is perfect. And no playoff proposal I have seen will fix the problem of exclusion, it will only make it worse.

Yes. Every game matters. Every game you play calculates into where you stand in the BCS. So for a 6 and 6 team, all 6 of your wins mattered and so did all 6 of your losses. You are number 50 in the BCS and wont get to play for the championship? Well that's because of your record and your poll average and your computer rankings.... and ALL of those were determined by what you did in the games you played.

If you want to say every game matters for that reason, then it is also true for a playoff, no matter how many teams get in or how their seeding is decided.

And I'm not even advocating a playoff. Not for a division of 120 teams separated into uneven conferences. I just don't like the poll and bowl system where voters have as much control over a team's postseason destiny as that team does. And I don't get how it decides a true national champion, either, when as mentioned by jkjsooner, the sample size of games is insufficient, anyway.

Jason

12/30/2010, 05:10 PM

Your example is convoluted and irrelevant. This isn't business, but sports competition.

The rest of your statements make no sense whatsoever. What was your point?
Ironical, considering your two most recent posts prior to this one stated the following:

"You could say that my feelings about end-of-the-year losses are illogical. I admit that. But it makes no difference; losing the last game of the year to me is a big downer.

I don't have an ounce of good feeling about our 1988 basketball season. I should, just like I should feel great about our 2004 football season. But I don't. Do you?

Fran Tarkenton once said that there is nothing worse than playing in a Super Bowl and losing. Sure he SHOULDN'T feel that way. But he does. With a playoff, nearly every year will end with the same ****ty feeling. Screw that."

and

"Suppose OU plays (say) Nebbish and beats them. In the same round, tOSU beats Clemson. Clemson and Nebbish are out, but you cannot say that tOSU is better than Nebbish, because tOSU didn't play them. If Nebbish had an opportunity to play tOSU instead, they might have won.

To say that a playoff truly decides a true champion is to assume that the law of transcendence applies in football, but we know it doesn't. At least that is how the argument goes."

You may be the most nonsensical poster I've ever come across.

Caboose

12/30/2010, 05:10 PM

how is it irrelevant? they got matched up by a bowl commitee. washington will go out and fight because they have something to prove. you think nebraska is highly motivated to play a 6-6 team?

they would be if they knew two 9-3 teams were waiting them if they win.

as it stands, they expect to go out and win a game against a team that is ranked somewhere in the mid 30s. so, they go out and win...woohoo we're number 30??? there are teams out there right now sitting at home with better records than the ones playing in these games but they are automatic qualifiers so....

It is irrelevant because the BCS didnt produce that match up.

And the irony is that a playoff would be VERY LIKELY to produce that same kind of matchup that you are scoffing at.

Again, NFL -Giants/Patriots.

SpankyNek

12/30/2010, 05:10 PM

Yes. Every game matters. Every game you play calculates into where you stand in the BCS. So for a 6 and 6 team, all 6 of your wins mattered and so did all 6 of your losses. You are number 50 in the BCS and wont get to play for the championship? Well that's because of your record and your poll average and your computer rankings.... and ALL of those were determined by what you did in the games you played.

This is only true based upon what the other 49 teams did in front of you.

If you have one team with a record of 12-0, one team 0-12, and 118 teams that were 6-6, how would YOU determine BCS #2 (a playoff participant).

Jello Biafra

12/30/2010, 05:11 PM

Wrong. Because in a playoff the 9-3 team gets the same opportunity to be the champion as the 13-0 team. You are therefore saying that 9-3 is just as good as 13-0 when everyone knows that is false.

If the 9-3 team beats the 13-0 team in the first round of the playoff, it didnt decide anything on the field...nor it make a situation where no one can dispute the 9-3 teams dominance...

13-1 is BETTER than 10-3. Isnt it? So then why did your playoff tell us the opposite? It didnt decide anything (unless you just blindly accept what you are told, like a zombie).. it just made more controversy.

Again, reference the Giants/Patriots Superbowl from a couple of years ago. 10-6 as good as 16-0. by allowing both teams into the playoff, you made 16-0 meaningless. After the playoffs, 14-6 wasnt better than 18-1. Yet we had to watch the 14-6 team be crowned champion anyway. So what was proved on the field? How was a true champion decided?

lol you guys are ridiculous....a 14-6 team was crowned because they beat everyone that was put in front of them in the playoffs. but, whatev.

Caboose

12/30/2010, 05:20 PM

If you want to say every game matters for that reason, then it is also true for a playoff, no matter how many teams get in or how their seeding is decided.

Sure it matters for seeding... but it doesnt matter for actually determining the champion.

Lets just say 64 teams get into the playoff. The number 1 seed plays the number 64 right?

Well in this year #1 is OU and # 64 is Kansas.

Regular season results -
OU is 13-0 against the #1 SOS and Big 12 champions. Average score OU - 55 opponents 3. OU played Kansas in Week 6 and beat them 58-0.

KU is 6-6 against the #70 SOS and finished 4th in the Big 12 North. Ave score KU-21 Opponents -21 They already lost to OU 0 to 58.

Ok... stop right there. Before the playoff even starts.

Are OU and Kansas the same? Are they tied? Do they both have the same quality of argument for being named National Champions right now, on the spot? Is there some dispute between them that needs to be "played off"?

OK, now proceed with the playoff. Make OU play Kansas to "prove (something? What?) on the field". What does 13-0 mean now? What does 6-6 mean? Can you honestly say either of them were meaningful?

What if Kansas plays the game of their life and manages to upset OU... score 20-17.

Now OU is 13-1 on the year with the #1 SOS and Kansas is 7-6. Are you going to honestly tell me Kansas deserves to be named the National Champion right now more than OU based on the results of the ENTIRE season?

Play with the size of the playoff, all you want. Whether it is 8, 16, or 64. If the teams matched up in it aren't equal then their games didnt matter.

Leroy Lizard

12/30/2010, 05:20 PM

Why don't we skip bowl games and just give out participation trophies? Your treading really close to that level.

Bull****. You have to compete to win a bowl trophy. How is that even close to winning a participation trophy?

I'd much rather have played in a playoff and lost in the championship game than beat WSU in the Rose Bowl. The immediate impact would be more devastating but with time the feeling of accomplishment would be greater in the playoff scenario.

Well, we have the 1988 basketball season to examine. I sense no feeling of great pride for that season. All I can think about is losing that last game.

We can talk ourselves into thinking that we are happy with the results for that season, but I certainly don't feel that way deep down.

In 2002 would you rather play in some mediocre basketball equivalent of a bowl game and win or lose to Indiana in the Final Four?

The question should be: Would I feel happier winning a "bowl game" at the end of a the basketball season or losing in the playoffs? The former, whether I should or not. Again, it's all about human nature.

The Kansas game is a different situation. We were a much better team than Kansas. We beat them handily twice that year. That is why that loss hurts so much.

But logically the loss shouldn't hurt at all. Why does it?

Simply put: Going out a winner is a downer, no matter how it comes about.

And before someone points out that this shows a flaw in playoff tournament (something I disagree with) I submit to you that in any reasonable playoff system proposed the football equivalent of Kansas in '88 would not have made the playoffs.

One playoff scenario would have the Big East champ playing. So UConn would be in. That would be even worse than the Kansas situation.

Caboose

12/30/2010, 05:22 PM

lol you guys are ridiculous....a 14-6 team was crowned because they beat everyone that was put in front of them in the playoffs. but, whatev.

And thus the problem. You have a different (and ultimately meaningless) definition of champion than I do. To you, the champion is just "whoever wins the playoff, whether they deserved to be in it or not".

Caboose

12/30/2010, 05:25 PM

This is only true based upon what the other 49 teams did in front of you.

If you have one team with a record of 12-0, one team 0-12, and 118 teams that were 6-6, how would YOU determine BCS #2 (a playoff participant).

I wouldn't. I would declare the 12-0 the national champion on the spot.

A 12-0 team playing a 6-6 team in a two team play-off doesnt make any more sense than a 12-0 team playing a 6-6 team in a 64 team playoff.

That is the whole point.

Unless EVERY team in the playoff field, whether it is two (like now) or 16, or 64, or 10000 is exactly equally deserving of being there, then the damn thing doesn't work. Period.

If you people understood what "playoff" meant, you would get it.

silverwheels

12/30/2010, 05:29 PM

Sure it matters for seeding... but it doesnt matter for actually determining the champion.

Lets just say 64 teams get into the playoff. The number 1 seed plays the number 64 right?

Well in this year #1 is OU and # 64 is Kansas.

Regular season results -
OU is 13-0 against the #1 SOS and Big 12 champions. Average score OU - 55 opponents 3. OU played Kansas in Week 6 and beat them 58-0.

KU is 6-6 against the #70 SOS and finished 4th in the Big 12 North. Ave score KU-21 Opponents -21 They already lost to OU 0 to 58.

Ok... stop right there. Before the playoff even starts.

Are OU and Kansas the same? Are they tied? Do they both have the same quality of argument for being named National Champions right now, on the spot? Is there some dispute between them that needs to be "played off"?

OK, now proceed with the playoff. Make OU play Kansas to "prove (something? What?) on the field". What does 13-0 mean now? What does 6-6 mean? Can you honestly say either of them were meaningful?

What if Kansas plays the game of their life and manages to upset OU... score 20-17.

Now OU is 13-1 on the year with the #1 SOS and Kansas is 7-6. Are you going to honestly tell me Kansas deserves to be named the National Champion right now more than OU based on the results of the ENTIRE season?

By your definition of "playoff", that's not a playoff, anyway.

Caboose

12/30/2010, 05:32 PM

By your definition of "playoff", that's not a playoff, anyway.

Sounds like you don't know what you are talking about.

A "playoff" is what two teams who are tied have to break an otherwise irreconcilable dispute. They both think they are the superior team so they must "play it off" on the field to decide it since it cant be discerned from their records and previous matchup.

A playoff is NOT what happens when a 13-0 team has already decided it on the field against a 6-6 team, or a 9-3 team, or even a 11-1 team. If there is no tie, you cant by definition even HAVE a playoff.

silverwheels

12/30/2010, 05:36 PM

Sounds like you don't know what you are talking about.

I can assure you I do. If you had read this whole post (http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3099630&postcount=93) instead of cropping the first paragraph and responding only to that, you wouldn't have posted that long-winded hypothetical situation that I only read the first part of before realizing it wasn't worth my time to finish.

Caboose

12/30/2010, 06:09 PM

I can assure you I do. If you had read this whole post (http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3099630&postcount=93) instead of cropping the first paragraph and responding only to that, you wouldn't have posted that long-winded hypothetical situation that I only read the first part of before realizing it wasn't worth my time to finish.

Oh I read the whole thing. I still dont think you know what you are talking about when you reference "my" definition of a playoff.

My response was a direct response to your challenge that games matter in our current system as opposed to a playoff. The scenario outlined how in a playoff the games don't matter, other for seeding purposes.

Yeah I get that you aren't a playoff proponent, strictly speaking... but you also said that "all the games the matter" was a catch phrase, and that is what the scenario was about.

And for the record, I am not anti-playoff. I just want to see a proposed playoff that will actually do what its proponents say it will do. So far, none of them have.

silverwheels

12/30/2010, 06:18 PM

So some games matter in the current system and some don't. Some matter in a playoff system and some don't. Okay. That's what I said.

Jello Biafra

12/30/2010, 06:21 PM

And thus the problem. You have a different (and ultimately meaningless) definition of champion than I do. To you, the champion is just "whoever wins the playoff, whether they deserved to be in it or not".

again, i say, win or go home....

as far as this statement goes....VVVVVV

******"It is irrelevant because the BCS didnt produce that match up"*****

really? cuz i could have sworn that the bowl commitee representing that particular bowl picked the participants....like since christ was a corporal....remember the shagalistic orange jackets that repped the orange bowl commitee?

silverwheels

12/30/2010, 06:24 PM

And for the record, I am not anti-playoff. I just want to see a proposed playoff that will actually do what its proponents say it will do. So far, none of them have.

And they won't. There really isn't a way to crown a true champion without someone bitching about it.

Caboose

12/30/2010, 06:25 PM

again, i say, win or go home....

Of course you do. All you have is meaningless catch-phrases. You have no real idea how to crown a champion because you cant even define the word.

as far as this statement goes....VVVVVV

******"It is irrelevant because the BCS didnt produce that match up"*****

really? cuz i could have sworn that the bowl commitee representing that particular bowl picked the participants....like since christ was a corporal....remember the shagalistic orange jackets that repped the orange bowl commitee?

Dude, do you understand that you just defeated your own argument?

Do you even know what the BCS is? Do you know what bowl Nebraska and Washington are playing in? Do you actually know anything?

Caboose

12/30/2010, 06:26 PM

And they won't. There really isn't a way to crown a true champion without someone bitching about it.

It goes deeper than "without some bitching about it".
The proposed playoffs dont fail because someone is bitching, they fail because they can be easily shown to not work.

Jello Biafra

12/30/2010, 06:27 PM

Of course you do. All you have is meaningless catch-phrases. You have no real idea how to crown a champion because you cant even define the word.

Dude, do you understand that you just defeated your own argument?

Do you even know what the BCS is? Do you know what bowl Nebraska and Washington are playing in? Do you actually know anything?

heh....ridiculous. read something and get back to me....they dont just throw people into a bowl game dooshpickle. if it is non bcs, they (bowl board members) still pick the participants. out.

silverwheels

12/30/2010, 06:28 PM

It goes deeper than "without some bitching about it".
The proposed playoffs dont fail because someone is bitching, they fail because they can be easily shown to not work.

That's true for any system, which is why I'd rather not have a national champion at all than continue with the joke that is the poll system/BCS or go to a cluster**** that would be a playoff.

Caboose

12/30/2010, 06:33 PM

heh....ridiculous. read something and get back to me....they dont just throw people into a bowl game dooshpickle. if it is non bcs, they (bowl board members) still pick the participants. out.

Again, playoff people, THIS is the level of intellect that you are in accordance with. Read all of his posts. Then go look at yourself in the mirror and cry.

The BCS somehow decided the participants of the Holiday Bowl because the non-BCS affiliated Holiday Bowl officials invited Nebraska and Washington. THAT is logic!

So the same logic means I personally decided the participants of the Alamo Bowl since the non-Caboose affiliated Alamo Bowl officials invited Arizona and OSU. Oh and Fleetwood Mac decided who was on President Bush's cabinet since Bush didn't ask them for their input at all. It all makes perfect sense.

Caboose

12/30/2010, 06:35 PM

That's true for any system, which is why I'd rather not have a national champion at all than continue with the joke that is the poll system/BCS or go to a cluster**** that would be a playoff.

For some years I would agree.

Clarification: Some years it makes sense to have a postseason determine the national champ, some years it doesn't. I do want to name a champion every year... I just want it to be based on the entire season and preserve the meaningfulness of the regular season.

Leroy Lizard

12/30/2010, 06:51 PM

Again, playoff people, THIS is the level intellect that you are in accordance with. Read all of his posts. Then go look at yourself in the mirror and cry.

And this is why I think the bowl system is safe for awhile. Playoff proponents can talk all day about what they want; they just can't provide a persuasive argument that would sway those that really matter. They're like kids in a candy store. "I want this! And I want that! And give me some of those!" Okay, but what about your health? Your weight? Your complexion? What is a steady diet of candy going to do for you in the long run?

They just can't peer far enough into the future to understand the impact a playoff will have on the spirit and integrity of the game. They just want, and want, and want.

I say let's keep our desires in check. We have a wonderful sport that has more color and spirit than any sport on the planet. THAT is what we should be preserving, because that is what makes college football great. If I thought the only purpose of the postseason was to settle which team was number one, I would watch the NFL instead.

silverwheels

12/30/2010, 06:55 PM

For some years I would agree.

Clarification: Some years it makes sense to have a postseason determine the national champ, some years it doesn't. I do want to name a champion every year... I just want it to be based on the entire season and preserve the meaningfulness of the regular season.

Then again, the problem with not having a postseason or only having the supposed #1 and #2 teams playing each other for the title is that the sample size is insufficient. Also, whether games have much meaning or not isn't fully determined until after the season is over.

IndySooner

12/30/2010, 07:03 PM

Okay, Caboose, I challenge you to pick this playoff proposal apart:

16-team TOURNAMENT

Designed to include ALL conferences (for inclusion) and to crown a national champion

All 16 teams are seeded by either a committee or a BCS-type ranking (I really don't care which one).

First, second and third round games are played on home fields. Home team gets all but 5000-10000 tickets (again, I don't care which--to be determined by people who know more than me)

Championship game to be played at Rose Bowl, in order to preserve the tradition of the "Granddaddy of Them All".

First round losers go to the other "BCS" games.

Bowl system stays in tact.

Revenue from the tournament helps support the bowl system to keep it viable.

Schools/Conferences (depending on how the conference handles it) earn a $25 million share for every game played in the tournament.

This has been determined a viable solution by the guys who wrote "Death to the BCS". They interviewed AD's, presidents, Conference Commissioners and TV executives to put their system together.

I'm curious at how this would not be viable to you.

Leroy Lizard

12/30/2010, 07:12 PM

IndySooner

12/30/2010, 08:30 PM

If OU loses in the first round, I doubt the team will want to play in another game. Season is over at that point.

All you got? Really?

I thought it was all about the experience for the players, coaches & fans to you.

Caboose

12/30/2010, 08:49 PM

IndySooner

12/30/2010, 09:30 PM

OK. We implement it immediately.
2011.

#1 OU - 13-0, #1 SOS, Ave score OU-55 opp-3, Beat UCONN 56-0 in week 2.
#16 UCONN 7-6, #68 SOS, Big East Champions, lost to OU 0-56 in week 2.

FAIL.

LOL. So that's why it won't work? Because you MIGHT get a re-match in the first round? Again, that's all you have?

FYI, we were VERY close to having a re-match between Michigan and Ohio State a few years ago. It CAN happen in this system, too.

Caboose

12/30/2010, 09:40 PM

LOL. So that's why it won't work? Because you MIGHT get a re-match in the first round? Again, that's all you have?

FYI, we were VERY close to having a re-match between Michigan and Ohio State a few years ago. It CAN happen in this system, too.

No. There is no "might" about it. And its not even about the rematch. It is about matching up two teams in ANY round that aren't equally deserving of being named National Champion.

My example was merely that, an example. There are countless other scenarios that would demonstrate the same concept. Why is it that you get hung up on minor details why failing to understand the broad concepts they represent?
What exactly is it that your playoff proposal does? What is the point of it?

SpankyNek

12/30/2010, 09:41 PM

LOL. So that's why it won't work? Because you MIGHT get a re-match in the first round? Again, that's all you have?

FYI, we were VERY close to having a re-match between Michigan and Ohio State a few years ago. It CAN happen in this system, too.

And OU/TX in 08.

And FSU/Miami in 2000.

Just because it COULD happen is no reason for fear.

I still ride them aeroplanes for example.

SpankyNek

12/30/2010, 09:44 PM

No. There is no "might" about it. And its not even about the rematch. It is about matching up two teams in ANY round that aren't equally deserving of being named National Champion.

What exactly is it that your playoff proposal does? What is the point of it?

If there is a set criterion for "deserving" agreed upon by the participants prior to the season, this takes care of your problem...unless it is about satisfying your perception of each teams's deservedness.....

Curious as to how many of the BCS title games have fit your definition...and if there were any "deserving" teams that didn't play in it.

IndySooner

12/30/2010, 09:50 PM

No. There is no "might" about it. And its not even about the rematch. It is about matching up two teams in ANY round that aren't equally deserving of being named National Champion.

My example was merely that, an example. There are countless other scenarios that would demonstrate the same concept. Why is it that you get hung up on minor details why failing to understand the broad concepts they represent?
What exactly is it that your playoff proposal does? What is the point of it?

The point is to settle it on the field. Everyone gets a shot at a title. The point is to give the people who pay the bills (the fans) what they want (90% according to Gallup).

Let me turn your question around. What is the point of KEEPING the current system?

Caboose

12/30/2010, 09:50 PM

If there is a set criterion for "deserving" agreed upon by the participants prior to the season, this takes care of your problem...unless it is about satisfying your perception of each teams's deservedness.....

Sure, when you get the coaches, AD's, Presidents, and Commissioners to agree that 6-6 teams are equally deserving as 13-0 teams to be named National Champions then get back to me on that one.

Curious as to how many of the BCS title games have fit your definition...and if there were any "deserving" teams that didn't play in it.

Plently. The 2000 BCS championship game is a good example.

IndySooner

12/30/2010, 09:53 PM

Sure, when you get the coaches, AD's, Presidents, and Commissioners to agree that 6-6 teams are equally deserving as 13-0 teams to be named National Champions then get back to me on that one.

Plently. The 2000 BCS championship game is a good example.

You mean the game in which most people thought we should be playing Miami?

As for the AD's, Presidents and commissioners, I think the article at the beginning of this thread explained why they're not interested in a playoff.

Leroy Lizard

12/30/2010, 09:53 PM

All you got? Really?

Not by a long shot.

I thought it was all about the experience for the players, coaches & fans to you.

Again, not by a long shot.

You have a system in place that no one is going to want. "We just got beat... so we're going to turn around and play another game against a team that just got beat... for... uhhh... to settle uhhh..."

Bad idea. These loser-play-loser consolation games are rare in sports because no one attends them. Football is especially problematic because it is expensive to host these games.

I wish you playoff proponents would at least think about these things before offering them.

SpankyNek

12/30/2010, 09:53 PM

Sure, when you get the coaches, AD's, Presidents, and Commissioners to agree that 6-6 teams are equally deserving as 13-0 teams to be named National Champions then get back to me on that one.

Plently. The 2000 BCS championship game is a good example.

How many teams would have to be included in Postseason tournament play to insure that all "deserving" teams had opportunity?

IndySooner

12/30/2010, 09:56 PM

Not by a long shot.

Again, not by a long shot.

You have a system in place that no one is going to want. "We just got beat... so we're going to turn around and play another game against a team that just got beat... for... uhhh... to settle uhhh..."

Bad idea. These loser-play-loser consolation games are rare in sports because no one attends them. Football will especially because it is expensive to host these games.

I wish you playoff proponents would at least think about these things before offering them.

So, what else about my example "wouldn't work". That part is ONLY about making the bowl games and bowl cities happy. I can take that part out and not be upset whatsoever.

Also, I thought the most important thing about the bowl games was extra practice. That's what the TV guys keep telling me. So you're saying OU would turn down all that extra practice?

SpankyNek

12/30/2010, 09:56 PM

Not by a long shot.

Again, not by a long shot.

You have a system in place that no one is going to want. "We just got beat... so we're going to turn around and play another game against a team that just got beat... for... uhhh... to settle uhhh..."

Bad idea. These loser-play-loser consolation games are rare in sports because no one attends them. Football will especially because it is expensive to host these games.

I wish you playoff proponents would at least think about these things before offering them.

Funny, but Nebraska, South Carolina, Alabama, and countless other teams that have no aspirations (due to losing their last game) are happy to attend bowl games.....why is this?

Caboose

12/30/2010, 09:57 PM

The point is to settle it on the field.

Again with the mindless catch-phrases. Your system doesn't settle it on the field. 13-1 is better than 7-6. THAT was determined on the field of play over the course of an entire season. YOUR season told us that 7-6 is better than 13-1. FAIL. Period. It isn't debatable.

Everyone gets a shot at a title.

Not everyone deserves a shot at a title. 6-6 teams don't deserve to "play it off" against 13-0 teams. That does nothing but make the regular season meaningless.

The point is to give the people who pay the bills (the fans) what they want (90% according to Gallup).

Popular != correct or functional. Look at the last Presidential election. That is what happens when people lose all reason and go with popular over merit.

Let me turn your question around. What is the point of KEEPING the current system?

Im not the one trying to sell something doesn't work. You are.

IndySooner

12/30/2010, 09:57 PM

Funny, but Nebraska, South Carolina, Alabama, and countless other teams that have no aspirations (due to losing their last game) are happy to attend bowl games.....why is this?

I also like it how the playoff opponents only offer reasons why a playoff won't work, all the while supporting a system that isn't working.

Caboose

12/30/2010, 09:59 PM

How many teams would have to be included in Postseason tournament play to insure that all "deserving" teams had opportunity?

Well this year 3.
Next year maybe 2. The next maybe 1. The next maybe 5.

See the problem?

IndySooner

12/30/2010, 09:59 PM

Again with the mindless catch-phrases. Your system doesn't settle it on the field. 13-1 is better than 7-6. THAT was determined on the field of play over the course of an entire season. YOUR season told us that 7-6 is better than 13-1. FAIL. Period. It isn't debatable.

Not everyone deserves a shot at a title. 6-6 teams don't deserve to "play it off" against 13-0 teams. That does nothing but make the regular season meaningless.

Popular != correct or functional. Look at the last Presidential election. That is what happens when people lose all reason and go with popular over merit.

Im not the one trying to sell something doesn't work. You are.

So, why else won't it work. You're saying it won't work, yet you're only arguing that a 6-6 team doesn't deserve a shot. It would still work. You just wouldn't like it. Why wouldn't it work?

IndySooner

12/30/2010, 10:00 PM

Well this year 3.
Next year maybe 2. The next maybe 1. The next maybe 5.

See the problem?

Yes I do. That's EXACTLY why we need a system that includes them all.

Caboose

12/30/2010, 10:01 PM

I also like it how the playoff opponents only offer reasons why a playoff won't work, all the while supporting a system that isn't working.

Stop confusing being critical of your idea with supporting some other idea.

We could just as easily say the playoff proponents are only offering reasons the current system doesn't work, all the while supporting some other idea that won't work.

IndySooner

12/30/2010, 10:02 PM

Stop confusing being critical of your idea with supporting some other idea.

We could just as easily say the playoff proponents are only offering reasons the current system doesn't work, all the while supporting some other idea that won't work.

I asked a simple question. Why won't my idea work? Why do you keep talking in circles?

Caboose

12/30/2010, 10:03 PM

Yes I do. That's EXACTLY why we need a system that includes them all.

Yes we do.... and it ALSO must exclude those who dont belong. That is even MORE important than including all those who do belong. This has been demonstrated over and over.

When you leave out a team that belongs the worst you can do is be unsure of your result. When you allow teams that don't belong you run a good chance of getting a result you KNOW is wrong.

NFL - Giants/Patriots.

Caboose

12/30/2010, 10:05 PM

I asked a simple question. Why won't my idea work? Why do you keep talking in circles?

Ive already answered it. You allow teams that don't belong.
On top of that, you arent even fixing the problem of deserving teams not getting a shot.

Caboose

12/30/2010, 10:07 PM

So, why else won't it work. You're saying it won't work, yet you're only arguing that a 6-6 team doesn't deserve a shot. It would still work. You just wouldn't like it. Why wouldn't it work?

Dude. That was an example. Are you so simple that you cant extrapolate from an example? Do you understand the reason a 6-6 team in the field would make it not work? Do you? If so then you understand why a 7-6 team or an 8-5 team or a 9-4 team or a 10-3 team or a 11-2 team or even a 12-1 team doesnt work also.

IndySooner

12/30/2010, 10:07 PM

Yes we do.... and it ALSO must exclude those who dont belong. That is even MORE important than including all those who do belong. This has been demonstrated over and over.

When you leave out a team that belongs the worst you can do is be unsure of your result. When you allow teams that don't belong you run a good chance of getting a result you KNOW is wrong.

NFL - Giants/Patriots.

Do you HONESTLY think that a 6-6 Florida Atlantic, or an 8-4 UConn, can win a 16-team football tournament. It wouldn't happen. They'd have to win three road games against top-10 teams. They, as conference champions, would be given a shot so that every team has a TRUE chance to win a national championship when the season starts.

Leroy Lizard

12/30/2010, 10:10 PM

Funny, but Nebraska, South Carolina, Alabama, and countless other teams that have no aspirations (due to losing their last game) are happy to attend bowl games.....why is this?

Completely irrelevant. Their bowl games were not specifically set up for the purpose of playing two teams that had just lost their post-season games. They didn't get into the bowl game they wanted, but they weren't kicked out of a postseason playoff.

Keep in mind also that once a playoff is established it dominates the post-season conversation, so losing in the playoffs is a serious blow.

Take two NFL teams that have been beaten in the playoffs and match them up. No one is going to show for those games. Losing in the playoffs completely takes the shine off a team's postseason ambitions, so asking the team and fan base to get behind yet another postseason game is a tall order, especially given the short turnaround time.

If OU gets beaten in the playoffs, I would seriously advocate the team NOT playing another game. And I wouldn't be alone.

IndySooner

12/30/2010, 10:12 PM

Dude. That was an example. Are you so simple that you cant extrapolate from an example? Do you understand the reason a 6-6 team in the field would make it not work? Do you? If so then you understand why a 7-6 team or an 8-5 team or a 9-4 team or a 10-3 team or a 11-2 team or even a 12-1 team doesnt work also.

That would work. You might not like it, but it would work. Give me a reason that it wouldn't WORK.

Caboose

12/30/2010, 10:12 PM

Do you HONESTLY think that a 6-6 Florida Atlantic, or an 8-4 UConn, can win a 16-team football tournament. It wouldn't happen. They'd have to win three road games against top-10 teams. They, as conference champions, would be given a shot so that every team has a TRUE chance to win a national championship when the season starts.

It doesnt matter if they can win it or not. If they even participate it means your playoff FAILED. If they only win the first round game then get blown out in the next... your playoff FAILED. On top of that, not only did you not solve the problem of exclusion you made it worse. If you have to hold 3 or 4 spots for the sh!tty winners of sh!tty conferences you are denying some 11-1 or 10-2 Big 12 or SEC team from participating.

IndySooner

12/30/2010, 10:13 PM

Ive already answered it. You allow teams that don't belong.
On top of that, you arent even fixing the problem of deserving teams not getting a shot.

What deserving teams aren't getting a shot?

Caboose

12/30/2010, 10:13 PM

That would work. You might not like it, but it would work. Give me a reason that it wouldn't WORK.

I already have. It isnt hard to understand. Your system doesnt do what you say it will do.

Leroy Lizard

12/30/2010, 10:16 PM

Do you HONESTLY think that a 6-6 Florida Atlantic, or an 8-4 UConn, can win a 16-team football tournament. It wouldn't happen.

Then they don't belong in the tournament. So why are they in it?

Caboose

12/30/2010, 10:16 PM

What deserving teams aren't getting a shot?

Well let's see. Does 6-6 UConn deserve a shot?

Jason

12/30/2010, 10:16 PM

So, if a playoff scenario fails because teams with loses can win it, how is the BCS is such a success, when undefeated teams aren't given a chance to win it all?

IndySooner

12/30/2010, 10:17 PM

I already have. It isnt hard to understand. Your system doesnt do what you say it will do.

LOL. It does. It does exactly what I say it will do. And it will work. The reason you guys don't give any specific examples of how it won't work is because it will. You might not like it, but it will work.

IndySooner

12/30/2010, 10:18 PM

Then they don't belong in the tournament. So why are they in it?

Because EVERY TEAM deserves the opportunity to win the national championship from the start of the year. This system would GUARANTEE that every team has a LEGITIMATE shot at winning a national championship from the start of the year.

Caboose

12/30/2010, 10:20 PM

LOL. It does. It does exactly what I say it will do. And it will work. The reason you guys don't give any specific examples of how it won't work is because it will. You might not like it, but it will work.

Youve been given as many specific examples as your mind can fathom. The fact that you claim it is "zero" says a lot about you.

The child in the candy store analogy given earlier fits you perfectly. All you know is you want all the candy. You can't fathom anything beyond what is right in front of you. Downstream effects on dental and physical health are completely foreign concepts to you. And they are pointless to try to explain. All you know is you want candy and you'll say anything to get it.

Caboose

12/30/2010, 10:21 PM

Because EVERY TEAM deserves the opportunity to win the national championship from the start of the year. This system would GUARANTEE that every team has a LEGITIMATE shot at winning a national championship from the start of the year.

But they don't all deserve a shot at the END of the year.

Right NOW. THIS season. Does Alabama deserve to play for the National Championship as much as Oregon and Auburn? Yes or no.

IndySooner

12/30/2010, 10:23 PM

But they don't all deserve a shot at the END of the year.

Right NOW. THIS season. Does Alabama deserve to play for the National Championship. Yes or no.

No. And Alabama wouldn't be in a playoff this year.

IndySooner

12/30/2010, 10:24 PM

Youve been given as many specific examples as your mind can fathom. The fact that you claim it is "zero" says a lot about you.

The child in the candy store analogy given earlier fits you perfectly. All you know is you want all the candy. You can't fathom anything beyond what is right in front of you. Downstream effects on dental and physical health are completely foreign concepts to you. And they are pointless to try to explain. All you know is you want candy and you'll say anything to get it.

You gave me ONE reason why you don't like the playoff that I submitted. You didn't give me ANY evidence as to why it wouldn't work. There's a HUGE difference between you not liking and it not working.

Caboose

12/30/2010, 10:25 PM

No. And Alabama wouldn't be in a playoff this year.

They are number 16 in the BCS, which you earlier said would be fine for determining the participants in your playoff.

Regardless, do you understand WHY they don't deserve to play for the national championship? Try to answer the question because I honestly think you are too stupid to understand the reason. Prove me wrong.

IndySooner

12/30/2010, 10:29 PM

They are number 16 in the BCS, which you earlier said would be fine for determining the participants in your playoff.

Regardless, do you understand WHY they don't deserve to play for the national championship? Try to answer the question because I honestly think you are too stupid to understand the reason. Prove me wrong.

You obviously didn't read my playoff. The #16 team would NOT qualify, because the conference champions automatically get in.

You're seriously going to call me stupid? I'm owning you right now.

silverwheels

12/30/2010, 10:31 PM

They are number 16 in the BCS, which you earlier said would be fine for determining the participants in your playoff.

Regardless, do you understand WHY they don't deserve to play for the national championship? Try to answer the question because I honestly think you are too stupid to understand the reason. Prove me wrong.

Do you really need to resort to insults every time you get into a debate with someone? Grow up, dude.

MichiganSooner

12/30/2010, 10:41 PM

and i didnt...i get bored of reading about playoff ideas and new bowl alignments and crap like that....its all about money and as long as thats what its about, i will continue to support OU and say fugg everyone else.

this NCAA shiite this year has me steemed and i want to go to the headquarters and bury people in the parking lot over it. they are biased i dont care what anyone here or anywhere else says.

Read the article. It isn't about what you think it is about.

Caboose

12/30/2010, 11:04 PM

You obviously didn't read my playoff. The #16 team would NOT qualify, because the conference champions automatically get in.

It doesnt matter. Do you understand why Alabama doesn't deserve to play fo the NC right now or not? If you understand then explain it to me in your own words so I know you actually get it.

You're seriously going to call me stupid? I'm owning you right now.

Yes, I am calling into question your IQ. You have shown repeatedly that you can not comprehend simple concepts or understand the principles behind simple examples.

Remember when you couldn't fathom a 5-11 NFL team making the playoffs and you tried to argue the point for hours by challenging that it could happen, then you couldnt understand why it was still being discussed despite the fact that it was you was that was repeatedly bringing it up, then it turned out you were wrong in the first place and yet you still couldn't understand the principle behind the 5-11 example and how the same principle would apply to countless other scenarios that you lack the mental capacity to think of on your own? Yeah, well that couples with your idea that you are "owning" me right now gives valid reason to question your intelligence.

You seem to think your own personal failure to understand something is the same as proving it is untrue.

Leroy Lizard

12/30/2010, 11:17 PM

Because EVERY TEAM deserves the opportunity to win the national championship from the start of the year.

Okay, UConn got its chance and ended up losing four times against weak competition.

Okie State played much tougher competition and only lost twice.

So why is UConn more deserving of a playoff berth than Okie State?

IndySooner

12/30/2010, 11:30 PM

It doesnt matter. Do you understand why Alabama doesn't deserve to play fo the NC right now or not? If you understand then explain it to me in your own words so I know you actually get it.

Yes, I am calling into question your IQ. You have shown repeatedly that you can not comprehend simple concepts or understand the principles behind simple examples.

Remember when you couldn't fathom a 5-11 NFL team making the playoffs and you tried to argue the point for hours by challenging that it could happen, then you couldnt understand why it was still being discussed despite the fact that it was you was that was repeatedly bringing it up, then it turned out you were wrong in the first place and yet you still couldn't understand the principle behind the 5-11 example and how the same principle would apply to countless other scenarios that you lack the mental capacity to think of on your own? Yeah, well that couples with your idea that you are "owning" me right now gives valid reason to question your intelligence.

You seem to think your own personal failure to understand something is the same as proving it is untrue.

FYI, it is almost mathematically IMPOSSIBLE for a team to go 5-11 and make the playoffs. You keep comparing the NFL to college football and it's not a legitimate comparison.

Alabama doesn't deserve a shot at a national championship because they wouldn't fit the definition. In the current system, an undefeated TCU team doesn't deserve a shot at the national championship because they don't play in the right conference.

You keep passing opinion off as fact. I want to know some FACTS that would make the system I posted not feasible. I've yet to see any FACTS. We obviously have a difference of opinion, so I don't care about opinion.

IndySooner

12/30/2010, 11:32 PM

Okay, UConn got its chance and ended up losing four times against weak competition.

Okie State played much tougher competition and only lost twice.

So why is UConn more deserving of a playoff berth than Okie State?

This is definitely true this year. That being said, there are years where zero and one-loss conference champions wouldn't be in the top-16, which is why you have to include all conference champions.

No system is perfect. I think there are flaws with this system, just MUCH FEWER flaws than the current system.

Leroy Lizard

12/30/2010, 11:39 PM

This is definitely true this year. That being said, there are years where zero and one-loss conference champions wouldn't be in the top-16, which is why you have to include all conference champions.

No system is perfect. I think there are flaws with this system, just MUCH FEWER flaws than the current system.

So if a team like UConn gets in but shouldn't have, which team should've gotten in but didn't?

And if a team that should've gotten in but didn't, how can we say that the national title issue was settled on the field?

IndySooner

12/30/2010, 11:42 PM

So if a team like UConn gets in but shouldn't have, which team should've gotten in but didn't?

There's no should have and shouldn't have. You guys always talk about deserving and undeserving. In your opinion, TCU, the #3 undfeated team, is undeserving of a spot. So, why is the #12 team in the BCS more deserving than a conference champion? Neither is deserving in your mind, so who cares which one gets left out, right?

The system would be set and there would be no judgment when it came to conference champions. They all get it. In the past 50 years, that would mean that no at-large teams lower than #13 in the final rankings would get in. In the past 20 years, that would be none lower than #11. So, you essentially have to be a top-10 team or a conference champion. That's a pretty set definition of who deserves a shot, right?

Leroy Lizard

12/30/2010, 11:50 PM

There's no should have and shouldn't have. You guys always talk about deserving and undeserving. In your opinion, TCU, the #3 undfeated team, is undeserving of a spot. So, why is the #12 team in the BCS more deserving than a conference champion? Neither is deserving in your mind, so who cares which one gets left out, right?

We're not the ones using the "settling it on the field" argument. You are. Therefore, it's your problem, not ours.

The system would be set and there would be no judgment when it came to conference champions. They all get it. In the past 50 years, that would mean that no at-large teams lower than #13 in the final rankings would get in. In the past 20 years, that would be none lower than #11. So, you essentially have to be a top-10 team or a conference champion. That's a pretty set definition of who deserves a shot, right?

Not even close. Your system rewards a team for playing in a weak conference. Scheduling tough out-of-conference competition is not even rewarded, unlike today in which it is one of the few ways a team from a weak conference can get into the BCS.

Caboose

12/30/2010, 11:51 PM

FYI, it is almost mathematically IMPOSSIBLE for a team to go 5-11 and make the playoffs. You keep comparing the NFL to college football and it's not a legitimate comparison.

FYI, I know EXACTLY how mathematically possible it is for an NFL team to 5-11 and make the playoffs. You didn't and were still arguing it. That is the point. The comparison is perfectly legitimate because it demonstrates the inclusion problem that a college playoff would suffer. You don't like it because you have no rational answer for it. You just keep repeating "it will work" when you have been shown over and over that it wont.

Alabama doesn't deserve a shot at a national championship because they wouldn't fit the definition.
It wouldnt fit what definition?

In the current system, an undefeated TCU team doesn't deserve a shot at the national championship because they don't play in the right conference.

They probably do deserve a shot at it, but fair enough.

You keep passing opinion off as fact. I want to know some FACTS that would make the system I posted not feasible. I've yet to see any FACTS. We obviously have a difference of opinion, so I don't care about opinion.

What are you talking about? 13-0 > 6-6 isn't factual enough for you? I didn't say it wasnt feasible... I said it doesn't work. And by "work" I mean - determine a national champion based on merit and demonstrated excellence over the course of the entire season while preserving the meaningfulness of the regular season.

What your proposal does is tell us who won the playoff. It doesn't tell us who won the whole season. It does this because you allow teams that are less deserving than others to participate.

The NFL Giants/Patriots scenario is a real world example of this. There are countless other scenarios I could spell out for you that demonstrate the same thing.

Once you understand why Alabama (or Oklahoma) this year doesn't deserve to be named the National Champion right now, then you will understand why allowing them to play for it results in a system that FAILS to "work" as described above. Once you understand why the Alabama or Oklahoma examples break the system, then you will understand why having a ridiculous number of teams in the playoff (like 16) exasperates that problem.

As unfair as the current system was to TCU this year, YOUR idea would be exponentially more unfair to Oregon, Auburn, AND TCU if it were in place this year because you are telling all three of them that their dominant undefeated seasons meant nothing.

IndySooner

12/30/2010, 11:53 PM

We're not the ones using the "settling it on the field" argument. You are. Therefore, it's your problem, not ours.

There are two people arguing with me and NEITHER has given a FACT as to why the system I posted would not work. I'm looking for FACTS here. You're stating the opinion that "undeserving" teams would get a shot and you don't like that. Please give me factual information that makes the system I suggested unfeasible. Until then, I'm going to assume that there is none and you concede that it could work.

Caboose

12/31/2010, 12:00 AM

Leroy Lizard

12/31/2010, 12:02 AM

There are two people arguing with me and NEITHER has given a FACT as to why the system I posted would not work. I'm looking for FACTS here. You're stating the opinion that "undeserving" teams would get a shot and you don't like that. Please give me factual information that makes the system I suggested unfeasible. Until then, I'm going to assume that there is none and you concede that it could work.

Unfeasible? Even the crappiest, most unfair systems are feasible.

The premise of most playoff proponents' arguments is that the issue over which team is the true champion needs to be settled on the field.

For the true champion to be settled on the field, all those deserving a chance to compete for the title need to be included.

If a team that clearly does not belong in the playoff is included, then they must have displaced a team that was more deserving of a shot. To substantiate this argument I offered the example of UConn.

Therefore, the most deserving teams were not invited.

Ergo, the issue was not settled on the field and your playoff idea does not work.

IndySooner

12/31/2010, 12:03 AM

As unfair as the current system was to TCU this year, YOUR idea would be exponentially more unfair to Oregon, Auburn, AND TCU if it were in place this year because you are telling all three of them that their dominant undefeated seasons meant nothing.

Auburn played one bowl team in their non-conference schedule: 6-6 Clemson. So, how do we know they are better than Wisconsin, Oklahoma or even Connecticut for that matter?

Oregon played one bowl team in their non-conference schedule: 6-7 Tennessee. So, how do we know they are better than Wisconsin, Oklahoma or even Connecticut?

TCU played one bowl team in their non-conference schedule: 7-6 Baylor. Oklahoma beat Baylor about the same as TCU did. So, same here.

You can't determine who the best team, or conference, is in college football without playing the games. Oregon and Auburn both played CRAP non-conference schedules, which means we ONLY know they are the best teams in their conference. We ASSUME they are the best teams in the country, but we don't know how they'd fare against the other conference champions.

IndySooner

12/31/2010, 12:06 AM

Unfeasible? Even the crappiest, most unfair systems are feasible.

The premise of most playoff proponents' arguments is that the issue over which team is the true champion needs to be settled on the field.

For the true champion to be settled on the field, all those deserving a chance to compete for the title need to be included.

If a team that clearly does not belong in the playoff is included, then they must have displaced a team that was more deserving of a shot. To substantiate this argument I offered the example of UConn.

Therefore, the most deserving teams were not invited.

Ergo, the issue was not settled on the field and your playoff idea does not work.

Again, you have to define deserving. In my system, I define it as winning your conference or being one of the 5 highest rated teams that didn't win their conference. Therefore, no one that gets left out is more deserving that someone who got in. The only argument would be for the 5th at-large spot.

You guys are just arguing to argue at this point.

Leroy Lizard

12/31/2010, 12:11 AM

Again, you have to define deserving. In my system, I define it as winning your conference or being one of the 5 highest rated teams that didn't win their conference.

But then you have to admit that a team will get rewarded for playing in a weak conference.

Is that how you define deserving?

Is a 7-5 MAC team, having lost nearly all of its OOC games and a few of its conference games, more deserving than a Big XII team with only two or three losses? What if those losses came to really good teams that were scheduled OOC?

If you say yes, then you're not using any definition of the word "deserving" that I am familiar with. Where I come from, teams are not supposed to be rewarded for playing weak competition, but that is exactly what your system does.

Caboose

12/31/2010, 12:12 AM

Again, you have to define deserving. In my system, I define it as winning your conference or being one of the 5 highest rated teams that didn't win their conference. Therefore, no one that gets left out is more deserving that someone who got in. The only argument would be for the 5th at-large spot.

You guys are just arguing to argue at this point.

This is pointless. If you can't see it by now you never will.

Candy! Candy! It will be good for me! Trust me! You cant give me one FACT that says otherwise! Candy!

Some folks are just destined to be fat, toothless, morons.

Leroy Lizard

12/31/2010, 12:17 AM

This is pointless. If you can't see it by now you never will.

Candy! Candy! It will be good for me! Trust me! You cant give me one FACT that says otherwise! Candy!

Some folks are just destined to be fat, toothless, morons.

We need a playoff!!! Grunt! Grunt!

http://atdetroit.net/forum/messages/5843/178783.jpg

IndySooner

12/31/2010, 12:18 AM

This is pointless. If you can't see it by now you never will.

Candy! Candy! It will be good for me! Trust me! You cant give me one FACT that says otherwise! Candy!

Some folks are just destined to be fat, toothless, morons.

There you go with more insults. That typically means you're losing an argument. Now you're just starting to **** me off. I'm done with you.

IndySooner

12/31/2010, 12:19 AM

But then you have to admit that a team will get rewarded for playing in a weak conference.

Is that how you define deserving?

Is a 7-5 MAC team, having lost nearly all of its OOC games and a few of its conference games, more deserving than a Big XII team with only two or three losses? What if those losses came to really good teams that were scheduled OOC?

If you say yes, then you're not using any definition of the word "deserving" that I am familiar with. Where I come from, teams are not supposed to be rewarded for playing weak competition, but that is exactly what your system does.

I don't give a **** about deserving. I care about allowing a tournament to define who is the best team in the country. I've explained myself plenty. You two have failed to tell me why my system wouldn't work, other than the opinion that teams would get in that you don't think should be.

Again, I'm done. This is pointless.

Leroy Lizard

12/31/2010, 12:20 AM

There you go with more insults. That typically means you're losing an argument. Now you're just starting to **** me off. I'm done with you.

No side can lay a claim to clean language. Believe me, I know.

Leroy Lizard

12/31/2010, 12:22 AM

IndySooner

12/31/2010, 12:23 AM

Just added two people to my ignore list that was empty before now. If anyone wants to have an intelligent discussion about whether a playoff would be feasible or not, I welcome the debate.

Caboose

12/31/2010, 12:23 AM

I don't give a **** about deserving. I care about allowing a tournament to define who is the best team in the country. I've explained myself plenty. You two have failed to tell me why my system wouldn't work, other than the opinion that teams would get in that you don't think should be.

Again, I'm done. This is pointless.

This is the problem. Nothing else need be said. You just want a tournament. NO MATTER WHAT. Whether it works or not. By God, the champion is whoever wins the tournament and you know this because the tournament produces the champion. Perfectly circular logic and nothing can ever prove it wrong.

Thank you finally mercifully showing what we already knew. Our goal is to determine the best way to crown the champion. Your goal is to have a playoff....regardless of the consequences.

Anyone who is SERIOUS about a playoff proposal that would actually work want to give it a try?

Leroy Lizard

12/31/2010, 12:30 AM

MeMyself&Me

12/31/2010, 12:36 AM

I started trying to read this thread and got bored after reading stupid post after stupid post. A lot of people have posted here that don't seem to know **** about college football.

Personally, I've never said a playoff wouldn't "work". I think it would be very exciting to watch and would make a lot of money. That doesn't mean that I think it would be good for college football though.

There are way too money people misusing the term "playoff" when they really mean "tournament". A "playoff" implies that a tie is to be broken whereas a "tournament" does not. If you really want your sports champion determined by a tournament AFTER the season, then fine. I don't. I like it how it is now where a 6-6 Sun Belt champion has no chance. I don't mind that a TCU with a terrible schedule, which they set themselves and therefore are responsible for, has no shot. I don't mind that a Boise State doesn't get a shot because they didn't move up to 1A with the idea of competing for championships (they did have a good enough schedule this year though... just were eliminated by Nevada).

College football crowns its champion in a way that encompasses the entire year like no other team sport. I have no problem with the fact there is more than one entity that names a champion and no problem with the fact that that means that some years, there's going to be 'disputed' champions. To say it doesn't work because it's not as neat and tidy as you like it to be is pretty damned ignorant. To say it needs to be changed so that you can get your sparkly post season tournament is pretty damned short sighted.

Think about it before you go down that one way road.

Caboose

12/31/2010, 12:38 AM

IndySooner

12/31/2010, 12:46 AM

IndySooner

12/31/2010, 12:48 AM

Leroy Lizard

12/31/2010, 12:56 AM

And, FYI, I think money needs to be a factor here. Right now, the money is going to the wrong entities. The schools, and possibly players, need to be benefiting from the money that is generated in whatever system is in place. With the current system, the only entities that are truly benefiting financially are the bowls themselves, coaches, AD's and conference commissioners.

Coaches and ADs cannot, and do not, benefit financially from the bowl system. These guys are salaried and the NCAA would hammer any school that would funnel funds from the bowl system to them. (Ask Barry Switzer what happens when you supplement school officials' incomes outside of normal protocol.)

Conference commissioners also do not benefit, because they head a non-profit organization and are therefore salaried. If conference commissioners were paid from revenues, the IRS would negate the conference's non-profit status. (This applies to bowl commissioners as well.)

There are a lot of myths out there about the money and how it flows in a bowl system.

StoopTroup

12/31/2010, 12:59 AM

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_YuSYrVhcdIQ/SgjdMlUQxAI/AAAAAAAAAKo/zBjRZrurhNo/s400/lizard+framed+black.jpg

MeMyself&Me

12/31/2010, 01:07 AM

I think that was a good post. I disagree, but we already knew that.

I don't think any system is without flaws. I just think the current system has too many flaws, and I think the TCU's of the world deserve to play for it on the field. I don't see how Oregon or Auburn did ANYTHING with their schedules that differentiated them from TCU. The tough parts of both schedules were put together by their conferences, not by the schools.

TCU doesn't have to be in the conference that it is in... it doesn't have to be in a conference at all for that matter. And I think it's been shown that you can schedule a strong enough non-conference schedule to make up for it. There are a lot of non-AQ teams with a tougher schedule than Oregon's... just not TCU.

As far as the money goes... that's a choice for the schools to make. I'm just a fan that likes the sport the way it is. I will concede they will make more money with a playoff. I've said this for years, even when conventional wisdom said otherwise. If your goal is to maximize money for the schools, then a playoff is better than bowls. But so is extending the regular season by a game or two. I'd rather do the latter than the former. If your goal is to crown a champion, I prefer what we have now than a post season tournament.

IndySooner

12/31/2010, 01:12 AM

Coaches and ADs cannot, and do not, benefit financially from the bowl system. These guys are salaried and the NCAA would hammer any school that would funnel funds from the bowl system to them. (Ask Barry Switzer what happens when you supplement school officials' incomes outside of normal protocol.)

Conference commissioners also do not benefit, because they head a non-profit organization and are therefore salaried. If conference commissioners were paid from revenues, the IRS would negate the conference's non-profit status. (This applies to bowl commissioners as well.)

There are a lot of myths out there about the money and how it flows in a bowl system.

I took you off ignore because I knew this would be a gem.

1) Coaches get bonuses for going 6-6 and going to bowl games. Bigger bonuses for BCS games. Bigger bonuses for BCS Championships. They benefit financially.

2) Do you think Joe C. gets raises because the baseball team is successful? No, he has a job because he hired Bob Stoops and the football team goes to bowl games. Again, he benefits financially.

3) Conference Commissioners get paid for the success of the football teams. Bowl success gets commissioners raises. They also benefit in other ways. A lot of this is outlined in the book. You should read it. You'll learn some things.

4) Schools are LOSING money going to bowl games, while the bowl games are bringing in millions. There is a MAJOR problem here.

StoopTroup

12/31/2010, 01:15 AM

I gotta see this next response by the Resident AD.

Leroy Lizard

12/31/2010, 01:20 AM

I took you off ignore because I knew this would be a gem.

[quote]
1) Coaches get bonuses for going 6-6 and going to bowl games. Bigger bonuses for BCS games. Bigger bonuses for BCS Championships. They benefit financially.

That isn't benefiting from the bowl system because they would get similar inducements from playoff games. And the money doesn't come from the bowls.

2) Do you think Joe C. gets raises because the baseball team is successful? No, he has a job because he hired Bob Stoops and the football team goes to bowl games. Again, he benefits financially.

Same thing. He doesn't benefit from the bowl system, but rather just from a successful season. If a playoff comes in, he will get similar benefits.

3) Conference Commissioners get paid for the success of the football teams. Bowl success gets commissioners raises. They also benefit in other ways. A lot of this is outlined in the book. You should read it. You'll learn some things.

Again, a playoff would be no different.

And I don't think conference commissioners get bonuses for bowl play. They are salaried and 501(C)(3) wouldn't allow them to get such bonuses. (At least I wouldn't think it would. I'm not a tax attorney.)

To say that a person benefits financially from the bowl system is to imply that the revenue generated from bowl play is funneled to them in some way. IT IS NOT. Universities pay their salaries, not the bowls.

4) Schools are LOSING money going to bowl games, while the bowl games are bringing in millions. There is a MAJOR problem here.

There is no such entity as a bowl, so a bowl cannot make money. There are bowl committees, but that is typically a non-profit. I'm not sure where all the money actually goes that is raised in a bowl game. Do you?

IndySooner

12/31/2010, 01:24 AM

Leroy Lizard

12/31/2010, 01:27 AM

This message is hidden because Leroy Lizard is on your ignore list.

I can pretty much tell you what your rebuttal was, so no reason to take you off ignore for it.

Beyond pathetic.

MeMyself&Me

12/31/2010, 01:31 AM

This message is hidden because Leroy Lizard is on your ignore list.

I can pretty much tell you what your rebuttal was, so no reason to take you off ignore for it.

One thing I forgot:

The original point of this post was to post an article about how the "not-for-profit" bowl games were wining and dining the AD's, presidents and conference commissioners. I would consider that benefiting financially from the bowl system. I know the IRS would.

If you like ignore, there are two posts in this thread that are an absolute MUST. It's like having your own personal 'ban' button! :)

http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=149388

StoopTroup

12/31/2010, 01:33 AM

[QUOTE=IndySooner;3100644]I took you off ignore because I knew this would be a gem.

That isn't benefiting from the bowl system because they would get similar inducements from playoff games. And the money doesn't come from the bowls.

Same thing. He doesn't benefit from the bowl system, but rather just from a successful season. If a playoff comes in, he will get similar benefits.

Again, a playoff would be no different.

And I don't think conference commissioners get bonuses for bowl play. They are salaried and 501(C)(3) wouldn't allow them to get such bonuses. (At least I wouldn't think it would. I'm not a tax attorney.)

To say that a person benefits financially from the bowl system is to imply that the revenue generated from bowl play is funneled to them in some way. IT IS NOT. Universities pay their salaries, not the bowls.

There is no such entity as a bowl, so a bowl cannot make money. There are bowl committees, but that is typically a non-profit. I'm not sure where all the money actually goes that is raised in a bowl game. Do you?

lol....I'm not a Tax Attorney....Thank God for H&R Block.

StoopTroup

12/31/2010, 01:34 AM

These days I think the IRS is just amazed if someone pays their taxes.

IndySooner

12/31/2010, 01:38 AM

If you like ignore, there are two posts in this thread that are an absolute MUST. It's like having your own personal 'ban' button! :)

http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=149388

Honestly, I've only used ignore twice now:

1) Last year, there was a poll on ouinsider that had an option for Bob Stoops to be fired. I put everyone who voted for him to be fired on ignore.

2) Today

Leroy Lizard

12/31/2010, 01:41 AM

Note to playoff proponents: You will not win, and in the end all you will garner is frustration and an ever-increasing ignore list.

:D

MeMyself&Me

12/31/2010, 09:08 AM

Honestly, I've only used ignore twice now:

1) Last year, there was a poll on ouinsider that had an option for Bob Stoops to be fired. I put everyone who voted for him to be fired on ignore.

2) Today

I've only used it once and it's still on for that individual. Was sort of annoying seeing all the "ignoring" posts and all the posts with the ignored person's stuff quoted by other people. After applying, those two grease monkey hacks, it's like they don't exist.

SpankyNek

12/31/2010, 09:54 AM

This is the problem. Nothing else need be said. You just want a tournament. NO MATTER WHAT. Whether it works or not. By God, the champion is whoever wins the tournament and you know this because the tournament produces the champion. Perfectly circular logic and nothing can ever prove it wrong.

Thank you finally mercifully showing what we already knew. Our goal is to determine the best way to crown the champion. Your goal is to have a playoff....regardless of the consequences.

Anyone who is SERIOUS about a playoff proposal that would actually work want to give it a try?

Realign Division 1 into 96 teams.

Use 4, 24 team "conferences" each split into 2 divisions.

Round robin in division.

Conferences are redistributed yearly based on previous year's performance, with bottom 8 teams moving down to lower divisions and top 8 lower division teams moving up.

Some sort of ranking system agreed upon by participants seeds the 8 division champs.

8 division champs have a playoff.

This one works at crowning a true champion.

Cue the "That will never happen" crowd.

MeMyself&Me

12/31/2010, 10:08 AM

Realign Division 1 into 96 teams.

Use 4, 24 team "conferences" each split into 2 divisions.

Round robin in division.

Conferences are redistributed yearly based on previous year's performance, with bottom 8 teams moving down to lower divisions and top 8 lower division teams moving up.

Some sort of ranking system agreed upon by participants seeds the 8 division champs.

8 division champs have a playoff.

This one works at crowning a true champion.

Cue the "That will never happen" crowd.

YUCK! You didn't do anything there that improves what we like about college football. In fact, you threw it all away!

SpankyNek

12/31/2010, 10:13 AM

YUCK! You didn't do anything there that improves what we like about college football. In fact, you threw it all away!
I was just responding to the Caboose "Someone provide a playoff that would work" comment.

This actually does what playoff opponents claim the current system does (although it really doesn't) make the entire regular season meaningful.

Outside of rivalry games (Which we have recently found out are only considered sacred until a bigger paycheck comes along) what does this system "throw away?"

Caboose

12/31/2010, 10:42 AM

I was just responding to the Caboose "Someone provide a playoff that would work" comment.

This actually does what playoff opponents claim the current system does (although it really doesn't) make the entire regular season meaningful.

Outside of rivalry games (Which we have recently found out are only considered sacred until a bigger paycheck comes along) what does this system "throw away?"

A. It wouldn't work based on my criteria above.

B. It wouldn't be college football any more. So what is the point?

SpankyNek

12/31/2010, 10:51 AM

A. It wouldn't work based on my criteria above.

B. It wouldn't be college football any more. So what is the point?

A. Have gone back to page 8 in an attempt to determine what you set as your criteria....mind re-posting it?

B. It wouldn't be the same as it is today, but it would still be college football...nice use of hyperbole though.

The system eliminates redundancy.

The system "makes every game count".

The system determines a champion based upon competition.

The system is inclusive for 96 teams (far more than the current system).

Short of a 119 game season, THERE IS NO WAY TO CROWN A "TRUE" CHAMPION, but this system gets a hell of a lot closer to it than anything we have ever had in Div. I.

Caboose

12/31/2010, 11:06 AM

A. Have gone back to page 8 in an attempt to determine what you set as your criteria....mind re-posting it?

B. It wouldn't be the same as it is today, but it would still be college football...nice use of hyperbole though.

The system eliminates redundancy.

The system "makes every game count".

The system determines a champion based upon competition.

The system is inclusive for 96 teams (far more than the current system).

Short of a 119 game season, THERE IS NO WAY TO CROWN A "TRUE" CHAMPION, but this system gets a hell of a lot closer to it than anything we have ever had in Div. I.

This was from page 9 I think.. and this is just the general idea:

determine a national champion based on merit and demonstrated excellence over the course of the entire season while preserving the meaningfulness of the regular season.

The problem with your system is the same as Indy's and everyone else's that I have seen. It tells us which team was the best during the post season playoff (kind of), it doesn't tell us which team was the best over the course of the entire season. And your proposal completely changes college football into something else, that isn't hyperbole. One year we are in a "conference" with Hawaii, Boise St, and Syracuse.... the next we are in some other "conference" with Arizona, Michigan State, and Wake Forest? Um... no thanks. That isn't college football. That is WWF style football.

And, like you said before.. it will never happen. So whats the point?

Where are the serious proposals that would actually work?

SpankyNek

12/31/2010, 11:16 AM

This was from page 9 I think.. and this is just the general idea:

determine a national champion based on merit and demonstrated excellence over the course of the entire season while preserving the meaningfulness of the regular season.

The problem with your system is the same as Indy's and everyone else's that I have seen. It tells us which team was the best during the post season playoff (kind of), it doesn't tell us which team was the best over the course of the entire season.

This could possibly be resolved by cutting the teams to 64 and having a round robin between the four conference champs...of course the same problem already exists in the current system as there are not enough head to head matchups to make a definitive call on who had the best regular season.

And your proposal completely changes college football into something else, that isn't hyperbole. One year we are in a "conference" with Hawaii, Boise St, and Syracuse.... the next we are in some other "conference" with Arizona, Michigan State, and Wake Forest? Um... no thanks. That isn't college football. That is WWF style football.

In an effort to truncate my post, I may have not been clear in what I was attempting to convey. Only the bottom 8 teams (of the 96) would fall out and would be replaced by the top 8 from FCS (or whatever). The conferences would be retained at a level of over 91% from year to year.

StoopTroup

12/31/2010, 11:22 AM

Truncate......lol

MeMyself&Me

12/31/2010, 11:26 AM

This could possibly be resolved by cutting the teams to 64 and having a round robin between the four conference champs...of course the same problem already exists in the current system as there are not enough head to head matchups to make a definitive call on who had the best regular season.

In an effort to truncate my post, I may have not been clear in what I was attempting to convey. Only the bottom 8 teams (of the 96) would fall out and would be replaced by the top 8 from FCS (or whatever). The conferences would be retained at a level of over 91% from year to year.

I don't even see the point of talking about this scenario. I don't see that ever happening.

I can see Indy's version happening. I just don't like it and think people are giving up way to much of what makes college football special to get a that nice sparkly post season tournament.

Leroy Lizard

12/31/2010, 11:49 AM

And your proposal completely changes college football into something else...

It's called the NFL.

Leroy Lizard

12/31/2010, 11:51 AM

I can see Indy's version happening. I just don't like it and think people are giving up way to much of what makes college football special to get a that nice sparkly post season tournament.

Bingo.

StoopTroup

12/31/2010, 12:19 PM

It warms my heart to see you guys come to the same conclusion that's been made for over 4 years.

Nice job. :D

jkjsooner

12/31/2010, 02:07 PM

This is the problem. Nothing else need be said. You just want a tournament. NO MATTER WHAT. Whether it works or not. By God, the champion is whoever wins the tournament and you know this because the tournament produces the champion. Perfectly circular logic and nothing can ever prove it wrong.

You want the champion to be crowned via a single bowl game. The champion is whoever wins this game and you know it because this game produces the champion.

I can twist your words around and make it appear that you're making a circular argument as well although I'm smart enough to realize that all of our arguments are much more complex than that.

I've said all along, you have 110 teams and most of these teams only play four OOC games. There simply isn't enough interleague play to accurately determine the best two teams. It's a crapshoot at best. Because of this I support a more inclusive system.

I support an eight team playoff. This could be done without significantly changing the meaning of the regular season. (You know this but you keep bringing up baseball or the NFL/Giants even though you know that those comparisons hardly fit.)

None of this relies on circular logic.

jkjsooner

12/31/2010, 02:17 PM

There are way too money people misusing the term "playoff" when they really mean "tournament". A "playoff" implies that a tie is to be broken whereas a "tournament" does not.

I'd suggest you google the term playoff. Here, I'll help.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Playoff

A tournament is a playoff. Maybe the term had different origins but the meaning of the term (as with many terms) has changed over the years. Maybe you don't like the current accepted definition of the term but that's more your problem than our's.

Either way, this is completely irrelevant to the debate.

Caboose

12/31/2010, 03:20 PM

You want the champion to be crowned via a single bowl game.
No I don't. I want the champion to be crowned based on their performance over the entire season. Whether its a single bowl that does it, or no post-season at all, or a 64 team tournament....I dont really care. I have made that abundantly clear.

The champion is whoever wins this game and you know it because this game produces the champion.

I can twist your words around and make it appear that you're making a circular argument as well although I'm smart enough to realize that all of our arguments are much more complex than that.

The problem is that I wasn't twisting his words.
He admitted that all he cares about is getting a playoff whether it works or not and whether or not the winner deserves it the championship.

I've said all along, you have 110 teams and most of these teams only play four OOC games. There simply isn't enough interleague play to accurately determine the best two teams. It's a crapshoot at best. Because of this I support a more inclusive system.

I support an eight team playoff. This could be done without significantly changing the meaning of the regular season. (You know this but you keep bringing up baseball or the NFL/Giants even though you know that those comparisons hardly fit.)

None of this relies on circular logic.
This has already been explained. You dont get it because you dont want to.

We arent even having an honest debate because we are debating two different things. You are closer to Indy. I am starting with a question and looking for an answer. You are starting with the answer and looking for ways to frame the debate that support your answer.

MY goal: Determine the best way to crown the national champion.
YOUR goal: Have a playoff.

I am open to a playoff... if it will work (yours wont). You aren't open to anything but a playoff. Until that gap is bridged there is no point in continuing the discussion.

MeMyself&Me

12/31/2010, 03:48 PM

I'd suggest you google the term playoff. Here, I'll help.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Playoff

A tournament is a playoff. Maybe the term had different origins but the meaning of the term (as with many terms) has changed over the years. Maybe you don't like the current accepted definition of the term but that's more your problem than our's.

Either way, this is completely irrelevant to the debate.

Wow, I can accept that people misuse a term to the point that everyone gets confused as to the meaning but you're going to use wikipedia as your source? You could have done better than that!

It is relevant to the debate. Traditionally, the college football champion has been the team (sometimes teams) that has been the best over the course of the entire season. A 'playoff' implies you are playing off a tie between teams that are tied at the end of the regular season. IF that is what you are talking about, then I wouldn't have a problem with it. The problem with that is that the playoff wouldn't always be needed. How do you account for an 'as needed' post season game(s).

It sounds like most 'playoff' proponents really want a post season tournament which does nothing but crown a champion of that tournament, regardless of their standing in the regular season. If that's what you want, just come out and say it. Call it what it is.

MeMyself&Me

12/31/2010, 03:52 PM

By the way, the only reason people misuse the term 'playoff' is because the NFL has ridiculously expanded its own 'playoff' into a large tournament without ever changing the name 'playoff' itself. You're a fool if you don't think this would happen to college football too.

StoopTroup

12/31/2010, 03:54 PM

I PITY DA FOOL!

http://www.haitian-truth.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/pity-the-fool.jpg

StoopTroup

12/31/2010, 03:59 PM

hOW ABOUT uRBAN dICTIONARY? :D

PLAYOFF

A US college football playoff does not currently exist in the Football Bowl Subdivision, where polls and bowls determine the champion. These polls are heavily biased. A proper playoff would involve all 11 college football conference champions, and a 12th team to round out the field - either the next-best 2nd-place team or an Independent.

Four games are played in September, four games in October, four games in November.

At the end of the season, ALL college conferences will be obliged to stage a championship game between their top two teams to determine their conference champion, if the top two teams finish within one game of each other, or if they send the winners of their two divisions to a championship game anyway. (i.e. 11-1 and 10-2).

If there is a clear winner after the season is concluded (i.e. a 12-0 team, with the next-best team being 10-2), no championship game is required.

CONFERENCE CHAMPIONSHIPS (Week of Dec. 1-7)

ROUND ONE
7 of these 11 conference champions, plus the best 2nd-place team (or an Independent - whatever works) play at the sites of the 4 major bowls during the second week of December. (8th to 14th)
The four winning teams move on.
The schools can then break for exams and holidays.

ROUND TWO
The four major bowl games are the Orange, Sugar, Rose, and Fiesta Bowl. The winners from round 1 meet up with the four top-ranked conference champions in these bowl games.
Four teams move on in the playoff from here.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=PLAYOFF