6 reasons for playoffs

[OU_Sooners75]

Not all undefeated teams are deserving a shot.
Not all one loss teams deserve a shot.
Not all two loss teams deserve a shot.

Somewhere you have to draw a line.

The ever-expanding NCAA hoops tournament is testament that the whiners eventually succeed in getting more post season games added to the tournament and continue to water down the regular season to utter meaninglessness.

The system we have now would improve if you took out the human polling altogether. I can't see where expanding the field adds much.

Well holy ****, we agree with something....however....

yes it would improve it a little...but it would still not be the best available option.

[SoonerPride]

Why doesn't every BCS conference champion deserve a shot? Why doesn't the highest ranked non-aq/independent deserve a shot? Why doesn't the next 3 highest ranked teams that didn't fall into those 2 categories deserve a shot? Not only do they all deserve a shot, but the 2 or 3 clear cut best teams also need to prove they are the best in more than one win or go home game.

Because if all it takes to get in is win your conference, then non-conference games are exhibition games. OU would rest all the starters and only care about the Big 12 season.

Way to destroy the college football season.

[Leroy Lizard]

Ummm...That is NCAA Division 3. Those kids are lesser in talent than most in the NAIA ranks.

A lot of the teams I was talking about moved to NCAA DII.

And what point are you wanting me to respond too...must have missed it with the drivel from SoonerPride.

Go to Div. II. Two teams dominate: Northwest Missouri State and Grand Valley State.

These two teams have played in the national title game in 8 of the past 10 seasons, winning 5 of them.

So now what's the excuse?

[jersey sooner]

Because if all it takes to get in is win your conference, then non-conference games are exhibition games. OU would rest all the starters and only care about the Big 12 season.

Way to destroy the college football season.

Thank God you're not our coach. Because if you rested all our starters in the non-conference and gave us 3 losses, we would be forced to rely only on winning our conference championship. See: '03

[jersey sooner]

Fair? Is it fair to expect a team that plays a tough schedule and goes undefeated and possibly has a larger degree of attrition due to injury because of the rigorous schedule to have to prove it again against a fresher team that played a bunch of pansies... and even possibly has a few non-conferences losses too? The "fair" issue goes both ways. I prefer the way college football is where it's more fair to the dominate teams of the season.

Is it fair to make 2 of the most dominate offenses in the history of college football take a month of football off and come out flat in the NC against 2 very hungry SEC defenses?

[OU_Sooners75]

Go to Div. II. Two teams dominate: Northwest Missouri State and Grand Valley State.

These two teams have played in the national title game in 8 of the past 10 seasons, winning 5 of them.

So now what's the excuse?

:confused:

What does that have to do with the NAIA? You have lost me...because what I was talking about was the NAIA....not even close to what you have said.

I also never said the schools that made the jump are worth a **** in the NCAA.

but thanks for the effort.

[Leroy Lizard]

:confused:

What does that have to do with the NAIA? You have lost me...because what I was talking about was the NAIA....not even close to what you have said.

I also never said the schools that made the jump are worth a **** in the NCAA.

but thanks for the effort.

Let me give you a synopsis.

You came in and gave us a bull-**** story about how the little teams in the NAIA get this fantastic chance to beat the big boys in the playoffs. I am sure you had many in tears here.

Unfortunately, it was all bull-****. The NAIA features the same freakin' teams in the national title game every year.

So you then changed your story to say that that was because all the good teams left to join the NCAA.

I then showed how the NCAA Div III playoffs are dominated just as much as in the NAIA.

You then changed your story once again to NCAA Div II playoffs, and once again I showed that the playoffs feature the same teams nearly every year.

So at this point you are now playing dumb, pretending not to know what the argument was all about in the first place.

Playoffs strengthen the stranglehold of the most powerful teams over time. You can look at college football playoffs at any level and you will see that the BCS actually has more diversity in its national title games.

Those who root for minor teams and want a playoff because they think it will improve their chances of winning a national title are idiots. It's just the opposite, and history shows it.

[jersey sooner]

But I thought you were in favor of systems that favor "stable programs"?

[OU_Sooners75]

Let me give you a synopsis.

You came in and gave us a bull-**** story about how the little teams in the NAIA get this fantastic chance to beat the big boys in the playoffs. I am sure you had many in tears here.

Unfortunately, it was all bull-****. The NAIA features the same freakin' teams in the national title game every year.

So you then changed your story to say that that was because all the good teams left to join the NCAA.

I then showed how the NCAA Div III playoffs are dominated just as much as in the NAIA.

You then changed your story once again to NCAA Div II playoffs, and once again I showed that the playoffs feature the same teams nearly every year.

So at this point you are now playing dumb, pretending not to know what the argument was all about in the first place.

Playoffs strengthen the stranglehold of the most powerful teams over time. You can look at college football playoffs at any level and you will see that the BCS actually has more diversity in its national title games.

Those who root for minor teams and want a playoff because they think it will improve their chances of winning a national title are idiots. It's just the opposite, and history shows it.


So My team never made the semi-finals...is that what you are telling me? Are you telling me I was dreaming a good dream that ended in a sad nightmare?

Your a ****ing idiot if you are trying to tell me what has happened in my life and try to discount it.

Sure, Carroll and whoever may be dominating now. Teams like Mid-America Nazarene and Huron and St. Benedictine dominated the NAIA ranks in the 1990s.

Still doesn't mean that little ole small college usa didnt have a good run in a 16 team bracket...but whatever the hell you want to think liztard!


Now for the rest of your drivel.

With the parity and scholarship limits, not one team will dominate D-1A like Mount Union has in D-III.

But keep telling yourself that...as long as it makes you sleep at night I suppose it is okay!

[OU_Sooners75]

I'm with you on this one. It's my single biggest problem with the BCS as it is. But instead of talking about why it's wrong to use human polling we get all this college football is so unfair, it's the only one without a tournament, it only supports the big guys, bowls are dumn, I want a playoff, whine, whine, whine. OU_Sooner75 speaks with such vile about the current system I don't even understand how he can watch it.


I do not speak about it with such vile, just stating an opinion I have had about the messed up system...but to be honest with you, I do not watch the BCS title games unless OU is in them.

The BCS is the system we have in place...though very far from perfect, it is the rules that all of us fans have to live by until they change it.

Unfortunately, we will likely never see a true playoff tournament in D1-A....so we have to deal with the system we have...but it does not mean any of us have to agree with that system or even like it.

[Leroy Lizard]

But I thought you were in favor of systems that favor "stable programs"?

Sure, OU could be one of the three or four that dominate year after year, but I'm not going to take that chance. I like where OU is right now and I have no ambition to change it.

[Leroy Lizard]

So My team never made the semi-finals...is that what you are telling me? Are you telling me I was dreaming a good dream that ended in a sad nightmare?

Your a ****ing idiot if you are trying to tell me what has happened in my life and try to discount it.

You have a nice story, but the reality is written in stone and undeniable. You can try to deny what has happened in NAIA playoffs if you wish, but anyone here can search the truth and find it.


With the parity and scholarship limits, not one team will dominate D-1A like Mount Union has in D-III.

Not at first, but it didn't happen at first in Div. III either. Are we really expected to believe that the parity in talent is so outrageous at the NAIA level that only two teams can even compete? What's in the water in Alliance and Whitewater that gives two teams such a massive competitive advantage? Are they the only ones that are allowed to sign players?

And what about Div. II? What's your excuse there?

You guys always crow about the "success" of the playoffs in the lower divisions, but you are completely incapable of admitting the truth -- those playoffs have transformed the teams in their division into three or four powerhouses and a bunch of sludge.

[OU_Sooners75]

Liztard....did I say we won the damn playoff? Nope...wish we had though...but we did make the semi-finals two years in a row...

and that is a heck of an accomplishment for the times.

[OU_Sooners75]

You have a nice story, but the reality is written in stone and undeniable. You can try to deny what has happened in NAIA playoffs if you wish, but anyone here can search the truth and find it.



Not at first, but it didn't happen at first in Div. III either. Are we really expected to believe that the parity in talent is so outrageous at the NAIA level that only two teams can even compete? What's in the water in Alliance and Whitewater that gives two teams such a massive competitive advantage? Are they the only ones that are allowed to sign players?

And what about Div. II? What's your excuse there?

You guys always crow about the "success" of the playoffs in the lower divisions, but you are completely incapable of admitting the truth -- those playoffs have transformed the teams in their division into three or four powerhouses and a bunch of sludge.


I think you are so far off the point I was trying to make that it is not even funny.

But keep trying. :pop:

[rekamrettuB]

But if you go back through history and do a little research, there have been less split national championships than non split championships. 13 years we have had one in the BCS era. Not really a bad ratio. But it would be something like that since the AP started in 1936.


Wait a tick...are you saying the old way produced the same, or close to the same, ratio of split NCs? Heck just the 90s alone produced 3 splits.

[OU_Sooners75]

Wait a tick...are you saying the old way produced the same, or close to the same, ratio of split NCs? Heck just the 90s alone produced 3 splits.


Well, to be fair, it would only make since to go back to 1950 when the UPI came about.

And in the 1980s, 1.
In the 1970s, 2.
1960s, 1.
1950s, 1.

I could be off by +- 1 but that is just 9 in 47 years.

~5:1

And I honestly think the only reason there is not any more than that under the BCS is because the AP is trying to stay relevant and so they pretty much follow the BCS now since being kicked out.

Also, 2 of those in the 1990s occurred under the old Bowl Alliance crap system!

[Leroy Lizard]

Liztard....did I say we won the damn playoff? Nope...wish we had though...but we did make the semi-finals two years in a row...

Try for once to think of the bigger picture. Look at the pattern of teams competing for the national title in the lower divisions, especially over time. What do you see? A few select teams gaining strength over all others until they dominate year after year.

I don't want that to happen to college football. And if it does, we will have screwed up college football forever. And for what? To settle who's number one?

Not worth it.

[Leroy Lizard]

I think you are so far off the point I was trying to make that it is not even funny.

That's an empty response by someone who has lost an argument.

[jersey sooner]

Try for once to think of the bigger picture. Look at the pattern of teams competing for the national title in the lower divisions, especially over time. What do you see? A few select teams gaining strength over all others until they dominate year after year.

I don't want that to happen to college football. And if it does, we will have screwed up college football forever. And for what? To settle who's number one?

Not worth it.

You don't really think a few select teams would wind up dominating year after year, do you? Out of the following, which are the select few you think would wind up dominating:

Oklahoma
Ohio State
Nebraska
Texas
Florida State
USC
Alabama
Penn St
LSU
Oregon
Florida
Miami
Georgia
Michigan
Virginia Tech
Wisconsin
Stanford
Auburn

There are too many good football players coming out of high school for one program, or even a select few, to be able to dominate year after year. I can say with complete confidence 47 is untouchable. If I had to guess the reason a select few dominate at the lower levels, it would be because all the good kids that should have been playing at a higher level, but weren't for whatever reason, decided to go to the select few programs that had been winning. And then it just snowballed from there. This could never happen in D1. Too many good players, and with what Boise symbolized, too much parody. Plus, I thought you were in favor of systems that favor "stable programs"?

[Leroy Lizard]

You don't really think a few select teams would wind up dominating year after year, do you? Out of the following, which are the select few you think would wind up dominating:

Who knows? I think I'm pretty good at seeing future trouble coming, but if I could predict the future that precisely I would be a billionaire.


There are too many good football players coming out of high school for one program, or even a select few, to be able to dominate year after year.

All those NAIA teams find players too. But somehow a select few teams manage to gain a huge advantage. One problem I have is the additional game experience the players will amass on a team that habitually goes deep in the playoffs. Not only does this give them additional experience, but it also increases an already huge recruiting advantage. High school players want to be on tv and playing in front of pro scouts.

Even if (say) ten teams manage to compete year in and year out, the overall pattern I demonstrated shows that a small school like Toledo essentially has no chance. A college football playoff will widen the divide, not decrease it. So if you are a fan of a smaller school, you would have to be crazy to support a football playoff.

Think of it this way. Last season Central Michigan played VaTech and lost by 24 points. Okay, they lost decisively, but that isn't total humiliation.

Now, stock the VaTech team with players that have an additional six games of big-game experience because they managed to go deep in the playoffs for two years in a row, plus increased recruiting from the extra exposure. Central Michigan is now losing by 34 points.

Once a team manages to make it to the final game three years in a row (which can easily happen), the seniors on that team could have 12 additional games of experience. That's almost like giving the players an additional season. So the team's stranglehold on the post-season only strengthens each year, not weakens. And if you look at what has happened in the lower divisions, you'll see the results.

BTW, I oppose the playoffs for myriad reasons -- the disparity issue is only one.


I can say with complete confidence 47 [???] is untouchable. If I had to guess the reason a select few dominate at the lower levels, it would be because all the good kids that should have been playing at a higher level, but weren't for whatever reason, decided to go to the select few programs that had been winning.

So we have yet another excuse to explain away the obvious.Yeah, that's the ticket. :rolleyes:


And then it just snowballed from there. This could never happen in D1. Too many good players, and with what Boise symbolized, too much parody. Plus, I thought you were in favor of systems that favor "stable programs"?

I want more than two stable programs in college football, because if OU happens to be one of those that doesn't come out ahead in the wash that would suck.

[Leroy Lizard]

By 47 I assume you meant our winning streak. But it isn't untouchable by a long shot.

[jersey sooner]

I'll bet you $100,000 it is still the record in 2050.

[Leroy Lizard]

I'll bet you $100,000 it is still the record in 2050.

Let's bet only a $100. I don't want to break you financially.

[ashley]

How could anyone think they could improve the college football we have now?

[jersey sooner]

Who knows? I think I'm pretty good at seeing future trouble coming, but if I could predict the future that precisely I would be a billionaire.

I was making a statement with that rhetorical question (rhetorical meaning a useless reply wasn't needed), smartypants. There are way too many elite programs, along with too many players, for one or two programs to all of a sudden swallow up the competition. Would a team that constantly performs well in a playoff be able to recruit better? Duh. But there aren't enough legit 5 start recruits to put a stranglehold on all of college football, even if they all went to the same 2 or 3 programs (but since I'm better at predicting the future, I'll let you in on something...this will never happen). And there are too many legit 4 start recruits to fit into just 2 or 3 programs. I just don't see how playing 2 more games than a team that doesn't make the playoff, but plays in a bowl, is going to create some giant advantage where a few teams will take over college football. And the reason I don't see it is because I'm so good at seeing the future ;)


All those NAIA teams find players too. But somehow a select few teams manage to gain a huge advantage.

You're talking about two completely different ball games. Big time college football does not equal small time college football. Good football players looking for the best option where to play football in NAIA have very few places to look. Good football players looking for the best option where to play football in D1 have an overkill of places to look. And NAIA recruiting isn't the national recruiting game D1 is.


One problem I have is the additional game experience the players will amass on a team that habitually goes deep in the playoffs. Not only does this give them additional experience, but it also increases an already huge recruiting advantage.

So you in favor of a small playoff, like my proposal. I want the top 6 seeds to play a maximum of 3 games because that's what coincides with what college football is all about. Fewer big games with a lot more riding on the outcome. You want this because you don't want certain teams to gain an advantage by playing more games. But if we assume what pro-bcs people assume, only the top 2 teams (:rolleyes: ) will play 2 more games than a team that didn't make the playoff but played in a bowl. All the other teams in the playoff would play at maximum 1 more game. So where's this unfair advantage coming from?


High school players want to be on tv and playing in front of pro scouts.

You're saying the best players will become more likely to choose high exposure programs? :eek: :rolleyes:


Even if (say) ten teams manage to compete year in and year out, the overall pattern I demonstrated shows that a small school like Toledo essentially has no chance.

You're saying T(CU)oledo has a chance in this system? :eek: :rolleyes:


A college football playoff will widen the divide, not decrease it. So if you are a fan of a smaller school, you would have to be crazy to support a football playoff.

That's why I'm not ;) And the divide in college football has nothing to do with the BCS, or if we had a plus one, the old bowl system, a 4 team playoff, 8 team playoff, 16 team playoff, etc...


Think of it this way. Last season Central Michigan played VaTech and lost by 24 points. Okay, they lost decisively, but that isn't total humiliation.

Now, stock the VaTech team with players that have an additional six games of big-game experience because they managed to go deep in the playoffs for two years in a row, plus increased recruiting from the extra exposure. Central Michigan is now losing by 34 points.

Why do you give a **** if VaTech becomes 10 points better than Central Michigan? You should give a **** that VaTech reaps the benefits of winning, on the football field.


Once a team manages to make it to the final game three years in a row (which can easily happen), the seniors on that team could have 12 additional games of experience. That's almost like giving the players an additional season. So the team's stranglehold on the post-season only strengthens each year, not weakens. And if you look at what has happened in the lower divisions, you'll see the results.

First off, "easily happen" needs to be replaced with "very unlikely." I mean, do you not even watch college football? Do you not notice the turnover from year to year? But even so, using my proposal it's much more likely that team would only have 9 more games. Which I call reaping the benefits of winning, on the football field.


I want more than two stable programs in college football, because if OU happens to be one of those that doesn't come out ahead in the wash that would suck.

No, what you want is to believe a playoff wouldn't be the greatest thing to happen to the sport. So you tell yourself things like "a playoff would wash out competition and only leave 2 stable programs." And it's really quite embarrassing.

[jersey sooner]

How could anyone think they could improve the college football we have now?

By having the best teams play the best teams, in a playoff environment. Simple as that.

[MeMyself&Me]

Well, to be fair, it would only make since to go back to 1950 when the UPI came about.

And in the 1980s, 1.
In the 1970s, 2.
1960s, 1.
1950s, 1.

I could be off by +- 1 but that is just 9 in 47 years.

~5:1

And I honestly think the only reason there is not any more than that under the BCS is because the AP is trying to stay relevant and so they pretty much follow the BCS now since being kicked out.

Also, 2 of those in the 1990s occurred under the old Bowl Alliance crap system!

Just a couple of contentions here. For one, there are a few schools that recognize a whole lot more than just the AP, BCS, and UPI/Coaches. Second, the AP asked to be removed from the BCS... not kicked out. But I see what you are getting at on both counts.

For what it's worth, I was a proponent of the BCS when it was first formed because back then I hated split titles. Now I really miss the way it used to be and think the occasional split title was worth it. When a post season tournament finally comes, I wonder how many people 15 years or so down the road are going to say, "I didn't realize it was going to be like this. I sure do miss the way it used to be."

[jumperstop]

Y'all are really into this. I gave up long ago. Don't care enough to read your guys long *** post.

[jersey sooner]

When a post season tournament finally comes, I wonder how many people 15 years or so down the road are going to say, "I didn't realize it was going to be like this. I sure do miss the way it used to be."

Yeah, if it's not done right.

[Leroy Lizard]

I was making a statement with that rhetorical question (rhetorical meaning a useless reply wasn't needed), smartypants. There are way too many elite programs, along with too many players, for one or two programs to all of a sudden swallow up the competition. Would a team that constantly performs well in a playoff be able to recruit better? Duh. But there aren't enough legit 5 start recruits to put a stranglehold on all of college football, even if they all went to the same 2 or 3 programs (but since I'm better at predicting the future, I'll let you in on something...this will never happen).

There are relatively few five-star players. Stack about ten of them in a recruiting class for about three years straight and you will see the effects.


You're talking about two completely different ball games. Big time college football does not equal small time college football.

We've been told constantly that a playoff will work in FBS because it works in the lower divisions, and now you are saying that the two divisions are too unlike to compare.



So you in favor of a small playoff, like my proposal.

There are no small playoffs, at least not in the long term. Playoffs always expand over time. So to rest your arguments on a solution that is only short-term won't work. You need to plan ahead. The college football playoff will eventually end up with at least four weeks of games and maybe even five.


I want the top 6 seeds to play a maximum of 3 games because that's what coincides with what college football is all about. Fewer big games with a lot more riding on the outcome.

The NCAA is not interested in your playoff ideas. What you want and what you're going to get are two different things.

This is another problem with playoff proponents -- they always assume that a playoff will be great because their scheme will be the one chosen.

No, we'll get what others want, and it will probably suck.


You want this because you don't want certain teams to gain an advantage by playing more games. But if we assume what pro-bcs people assume, only the top 2 teams (:rolleyes: ) will play 2 more games than a team that didn't make the playoff but played in a bowl. All the other teams in the playoff would play at maximum 1 more game. So where's this unfair advantage coming from?

Again, you need to think 16-team playoffs, because that is ultimately what will happen. Over a player's career that's a whole bunch of games.

I would not be nearly as opposed to a playoff if I felt that a smaller playoff would remain intact, but I'm not that naive.


You're saying T(CU)oledo has a chance in this system? :eek: :rolleyes:

Yes, a far better chance. If they manage to put together a few good seasons, eventually they could position themselves to make a run. Under a 16-team playoff, their chances would be bad at first and increase to essentially 0 as the major powers strengthen up.


Why do you give a **** if VaTech becomes 10 points better than Central Michigan?

The point is simple: As time passes, Central Michigan loses more and more ground to the major powers. Any fan of Central Michigan that thinks a playoff works in their favor is deluded.


First off, "easily happen" needs to be replaced with "very unlikely." I mean, do you not even watch college football? Do you not notice the turnover from year to year?

See the other divisions. Over time, it's inevitable.


No, what you want is to believe a playoff wouldn't be the greatest thing to happen to the sport. So you tell yourself things like "a playoff would wash out competition and only leave 2 stable programs." And it's really quite embarrassing.

The evidence is on my side.

As for a playoff being the best thing that ever happen to the sport, nope. It would only increase the decay of the amateurism of the sport and create a caste system among the teams. Right now it is the most popular sport in all of college sports, and so I see no reason to monkey with it. If college football was struggling for popularity, you might have had a point. But I think all we will do is screw it up.

[Leroy Lizard]

When a post season tournament finally comes, I wonder how many people 15 years or so down the road are going to say, "I didn't realize it was going to be like this. I sure do miss the way it used to be."

Exactly. We'll be left wondering what went wrong.

And for what? College football already dominates in popularity over its rival sports, and here we are trying to change it. Leave it alone.

[OU_Sooners75]

Exactly. We'll be left wondering what went wrong.

And for what? College football already dominates in popularity over its rival sports, and here we are trying to change it. Leave it alone.


I am pretty sure college football would continue to dominate with or without a playoff in place.

Do not get me wrong I love CFB today. Though, I may hate the BCS system...but it would be nice to see a real playoff to determine a real champion.

Sure others would still bitch and moan about being left out...just schedule tougher games or win your conference or whatever and you'll get a shot.

Now it is win all your games or hope for the teams ahead of you lose. That is the gripe I have about what we have now.

[Leroy Lizard]

I am pretty sure college football would continue to dominate with or without a playoff in place.

Yeah, but that's what worries me.

[StoopTroup]

Playoffs will only happen if it makes the NCAA more money. Figure out the financial details and how all these minor bowls will still be able to still play post Season Games like they do now and also figure into the mix how many Fans and Students are going to be able to travel to 4-6 neutral sites to follow their Teams in December and January as they play for the National Championship. Add the cost of the Bands, Hotels, Tickets for Families and Coaches Families and School Officials for each of these added games....the loss of income for the teams who dropped the Non-conference games so they don't end up playing 15-16 games a Season. Maybe even drop 60 Schools out of it all and change all the Conferences.

There have been so many ideas that mostly benefit the fans and leave out the costs or, benefit the idea that using the NFLs system can truly crown a real Champion. Even that one might be a great idea but it has something the NCAA doesn't.....less than 125 teams.

We should all be worried. If changes come down....it will probably change things due to money. The system we all grew up with will be gone forever and at the end of the Season as it is now. We at least get to see a ton of football on TV as well as be able to follow our Teams a bit around the Nation. Changes to crown a REAL VALID Champion will probably put and end to Fans actually being a part of it. Unless I was to retire....I don't see myself being able to make 4-6 road games in December as our Team competes for the MNC.

Pondering this is and will remain something that crazy people consider. IMO things may not be perfect but things will never be perfect. Enjoy what we have and remember....just how many more Shots at a MNC do you think we'd get with a different system than what Bob has been successful with this decade. My thoughts are that we wouldn't have been to as many MNCs as we have. I wish we'd won them all too....but the one thing I know is this....the way things are right now.....Teams around the Nation would rather not play us and they get pretty lathered up when someone like BYU or Boise St gets lucky and upsets the Legendary Sooners.

Screw a playoff....

[OU_Sooners75]

Yeah, but that's what worries me.


Nice slap bro...nice slap.

[texaspokieokie]

from Stoop; "screw a playoff".

excellent !!!!

[Jacie]

The unfolding scandal that so far involves only the Fiesta Bowl is by itself, reason enough to junk the BCS and move to a playoff. I say so far because the BCS is bending over backwards to direct attention away from the other bowl games and focus strictly on the Fiesta Bowl officials. Might as well let the inmates run the asylum. Yes, it does come down to money and these guys, the bowl officials, have been on a decade-long party thanks to the largesse of the networks, sponsors and college football fans, who have picked up the bill while the conferences have had to beg for the paltry payouts they get in return. While some of you enlightened posters may argue that a 7-figure amount of money is anything but paltry, the BCS is making a killing off the games, far in excess of what makes it back to the schools, which are the one and only reason the games are played in the first place. Really, the only people who have any argument against a playoff are the bowl officials. The rest of us should be screaming for one.

[rekamrettuB]

By having the best teams play the best teams, in a playoff environment. Simple as that.

There's no doubt a playoff would make the postseason portion of college football more exciting. But at the same time it would injure what makes college football different than any other sport...the regular season. Think of it in a snapshot...last year after the Mizzu loss; recall how you felt after that game. Now, the new feeling with a playoff would be far less impactful. It would trickle down from a "dang, there goes a NC possibility" to a "it's OK...we just win out/conference and we are in the playoffs". That's where the difference will change college football.

College football's uniqueness in the regular season is what sets it apart from all other sports. Quit looking at it like "every other sport does it (playoff) so why not this one?"

[SoonerPride]

Think of it in a snapshot...last year after the Mizzu loss; recall how you felt after that game. Now, the new feeling with a playoff would be far less impactful. It would trickle down from a "dang, there goes a NC possibility" to a "it's OK...we just win out/conference and we are in the playoffs". That's where the difference will change college football.


This point cannot be made enough.
I LIKE the fact that the OU/* game is IMPORTANT.
The high stakes for the game add to the thrill of victory AND the agony of defeat.
I do not want to lessen the importance of that game where a Sooner win lets * fans leave the stadium still feeling like they have a reason to live. "oh well, we just need to finish ok and we're in the playoffs" Screw that. I want them to feel PAIN.
Expanding the post season beyond the two team field we have now only lessens the regular season. There is no way around that simple fact.
The more teams you let in the playoffs equally diminishes the importance of regular season games.
2 team post season = regular season of utmost importance
4 teams = regular season slightly less important
8 teams = one loss teams expect a shot, regular season diminished greatly
16 teams = two loss teams in the field, regular season is pretty much worthless at this point

[jersey sooner]

There's no doubt a playoff would make the postseason portion of college football more exciting. But at the same time it would injure what makes college football different than any other sport...the regular season. Think of it in a snapshot...last year after the Mizzu loss; recall how you felt after that game. Now, the new feeling with a playoff would be far less impactful. It would trickle down from a "dang, there goes a NC possibility" to a "it's OK...we just win out/conference and we are in the playoffs". That's where the difference will change college football.

College football's uniqueness in the regular season is what sets it apart from all other sports. Quit looking at it like "every other sport does it (playoff) so why not this one?"

I agree, there is obviously no better regular season in all of sports. But I'm also adamant that a small playoff isn't going to ruin it. All it would do is take a little away from the early season games and put more on the late season games. Look at my proposal, and then think about how absolutely huge Bedlam would have been. It would have set up so that we were fighting for a chance to fight to get into the playoff. Think about how gigantic conference championship games would be. A small playoff wouldn't kill the excitement of the regular season. It would just take a little importance of the early season games, and add a ton of excitement to the end of the season. And in my opinion, that's the way it should be. This system sets up so that your most critical game can be in the third week of the season. It doesn't allow teams to find their stride. Like the Packers did.

[jersey sooner]

This point cannot be made enough.
I LIKE the fact that the OU/* game is IMPORTANT.
The high stakes for the game add to the thrill of victory AND the agony of defeat.
I do not want to lessen the importance of that game where a Sooner win lets * fans leave the stadium still feeling like they have a reason to live. "oh well, we just need to finish ok and we're in the playoffs" Screw that. I want them to feel PAIN.
Expanding the post season beyond the two team field we have now only lessens the regular season. There is no way around that simple fact.
The more teams you let in the playoffs equally diminishes the importance of regular season games.
2 team post season = regular season of utmost importance
4 teams = regular season slightly less important
8 teams = one loss teams expect a shot, regular season diminished greatly


2008?

[rekamrettuB]

I agree, there is obviously no better regular season in all of sports. But I'm also adamant that a small playoff isn't going to ruin it. All it would do is take a little away from the early season games and put more on the late season games. Look at my proposal, and then think about how absolutely huge OU-OSU would have been. It would have set up so that we were fighting for a chance to fight to get into the playoff. Think about how gigantic conference championship games would be. A small playoff wouldn't kill the excitement of the regular season. It would just take a little importance of the early season games, and add a ton of excitement to the end of the season. And in my opinion, that's the way it should be. This system sets up so that your most critical game can be in the third week of the season. It doesn't allow teams to find their stride. Like the Packers did.

But the slippery slope of a small playoff is expansions. History (NCAA BBall) shows that expansion does happen. If you could guarantee me the playoff would never get bigger than 8 teams, my ears would be open.

[soonermix]

There's no doubt a playoff would make the postseason portion of college football more exciting. But at the same time it would injure what makes college football different than any other sport...the regular season. Think of it in a snapshot...last year after the Mizzu loss; recall how you felt after that game. Now, the new feeling with a playoff would be far less impactful. It would trickle down from a "dang, there goes a NC possibility" to a "it's OK...we just win out/conference and we are in the playoffs". That's where the difference will change college football.

College football's uniqueness in the regular season is what sets it apart from all other sports. Quit looking at it like "every other sport does it (playoff) so why not this one?"

this arguement is valid as long as you are undefeated. what about the teams that have no chance after about 3 weeks? 10 weeks?

[MeMyself&Me]

But the slippery slope of a small playoff is expansions. History (NCAA BBall) shows that expansion does happen. If you could guarantee me the playoff would never get bigger than 8 teams, my ears would be open.

I would take the point further than that. The ones that can bring about a playoff are the university presidents. I see serious problems with every 4, 8, and 12 team tourny models I have seen that will not make the presidents happy with how the money, exposure, and opportunity is dispersed through the universities involved. I CAN see how a 16 team would satisfy them though and I think that is the only real post season tourny possibility.

[Leroy Lizard]

The unfolding scandal that so far involves only the Fiesta Bowl is by itself, reason enough to junk the BCS and move to a playoff. I say so far because the BCS is bending over backwards to direct attention away from the other bowl games and focus strictly on the Fiesta Bowl officials. Might as well let the inmates run the asylum. Yes, it does come down to money and these guys, the bowl officials, have been on a decade-long party thanks to the largesse of the networks, sponsors and college football fans, who have picked up the bill while the conferences have had to beg for the paltry payouts they get in return. While some of you enlightened posters may argue that a 7-figure amount of money is anything but paltry, the BCS is making a killing off the games, far in excess of what makes it back to the schools, which are the one and only reason the games are played in the first place. Really, the only people who have any argument against a playoff are the bowl officials. The rest of us should be screaming for one.

So where do you plan on hosting these games? No matter where, there will be officials assigned to make the arrangements, and without proper oversight they will do pretty much what Junkers did.

The money that Junkers forked out to political cronies had nothing to do with the BCS.

[Leroy Lizard]

I agree, there is obviously no better regular season in all of sports. But I'm also adamant that a small playoff isn't going to ruin it. All it would do is take a little away from the early season games and put more on the late season games. Look at my proposal, and then think about how absolutely huge OU-OSU would have been. It would have set up so that we were fighting for a chance to fight to get into the playoff. Think about how gigantic conference championship games would be. A small playoff wouldn't kill the excitement of the regular season. It would just take a little importance of the early season games, and add a ton of excitement to the end of the season. And in my opinion, that's the way it should be. This system sets up so that your most critical game can be in the third week of the season. It doesn't allow teams to find their stride. Like the Packers did.

Again, you keep clinging to this notion that a small playoff will remain a small playoff. Will not happen, and anyone that believes otherwise is nuts.

[rekamrettuB]

this arguement is valid as long as you are undefeated. what about the teams that have no chance after about 3 weeks? 10 weeks?

What about them? Should not have lost. In college football every game (OOC as well as conference) is as important as any other when played. Win all your games and you have a great chance of playing for the NC. Bust in a playoff of conference champs and the OOC is pretty meaningless and could be treated like the preseason NFL games by coaches.

[OU_Sooners75]

What about them? Should not have lost. In college football every game (OOC as well as conference) is as important as any other when played. Win all your games and you have a great chance of playing for the NC. Bust in a playoff of conference champs and the OOC is pretty meaningless and could be treated like the preseason NFL games by coaches.


yeah, they are all important...that is why some teams like Florida and Texass would much rather play a cream puff non-conference schedule as opposed to decent one.

yes...put in place a playoff, and the OCC becomes just exhibition games....but is that really that terrible?

Then we would see more of the top 15 teams willing to schedule each other because a loss or two would not necessarily mean you are out of the NC talk.

Think about it...would you rather have what we see in the early part of the season now:

Florida vs. The Citadel
Texas vs. Rice
Florida vs. App State
Texas vs. Florida Atlantic
Nebraska vs. Western Kentucky
Nebraska vs. South Dakota State

Or would you like to see more:

Oklahoma vs. Florida
USC vs. Texas
OSU vs. Oklahoma
USC vs. Florida
Texas vs. LSU
Oklahoma vs. Alabama

I would much rather watch the latter than the former.

With a playoff, you would see a lot more higher profile games being played in the non-conference schedules.

[rekamrettuB]

At least in today's game there is a very strong reason to schedule better OOCs. Look at the 2008 season. I just see things opposite if a playoff exists. Coaches will start looking at it like preseason NFL games and scheduling patsies whlie developing depth. The only way to start positively affecting OOC scheduling is going back to the old SOS factor in the BCS rankings they once had.

[OU_Sooners75]

At least in today's game there is a very strong reason to schedule better OOCs. Look at the 2008 season. I just see things opposite if a playoff exists. Coaches will start looking at it like preseason NFL games and scheduling patsies whlie developing depth. The only way to start positively affecting OOC scheduling is going back to the old SOS factor in the BCS rankings they once had.


And those stronger OOC schedules would mean very little had there not been computers involved.

If you think a playoff will make the college coaches look at it as NFL preseason you are about as naive as they come.

[rekamrettuB]

And those stronger OOC schedules would mean very little had there not been computers involved.

If you think a playoff will make the college coaches look at it as NFL preseason you are about as naive as they come.

I guess I'm as naive as they come then. Just look at what removing the SOS component from the BCS formula did. Teams started trending back to weaker schedules.

[OU_Sooners75]

I guess I'm as naive as they come then. Just look at what removing the SOS component from the BCS formula did. Teams started trending back to weaker schedules.


No they didn't...

They changed that because teams like OU, OSU, and Miami, teams that generally schedule pretty tough OOC games and have some of the higher SOS's in the nation were getting better rankings.

They took the SOS out after the 2003 season, because OU lost to KSU and had such a demanding lead in the BCS that the loss did not hurt their #1 ranking, thanks to SOS. Just like they took out the MOV after the 2001 season, after Nebraska had such a good MOV that it got them to the BCS championship over Oregon.

It wasn't that teams were scheduling too tough...it was the fact that a lot of teams were scheduling easy and they thought it was unfair that they were getting lower computer rankings than the ones that were scheduling good teams. And it was because some BCS conferences were not very tough to begin with...ACC before Miami and VT, then the Big East after Miami and VT left for the ACC.

The teams that were not scheduling tough games then, are still not scheduling tough games now. The teams that were scheduling tough games then are still scheduling tough games now!

[jersey sooner]

But the slippery slope of a small playoff is expansions. History (NCAA BBall) shows that expansion does happen. If you could guarantee me the playoff would never get bigger than 8 teams, my ears would be open.

I'll concede that this is the best, and probably only, argument against a playoff.

[Caboose]

I'll concede that this is the best, and probably only, argument against a playoff.

LOL

[jersey sooner]

LOL

I'm funny how, I mean funny like I'm a clown, I amuse you? I make you laugh, I'm here to ****in' amuse you? What do you mean funny, funny how? How am I funny?

[Leroy Lizard]

I'll concede that this is the best, and probably only, argument against a playoff.

There are a ton of arguments, but this is one that is particularly damning. All those good things you espouse about your playoff ideas vanish if the playoff expands, and expansion is inevitable. So what good are your ideas?

[Caboose]

I'm funny how, I mean funny like I'm a clown, I amuse you? I make you laugh, I'm here to ****in' amuse you? What do you mean funny, funny how? How am I funny?

Yes... basically like a clown.
There are numerous solid arguments against a playoff.

[jersey sooner]

OK, so it's a wash with undefeated teams being given 0 chance to win the championship.

[jersey sooner]

Yes... basically like a clown.
There are numerous solid arguments against a playoff.

Go on...

[OU_Sooners75]

Yes... basically like a clown.
There are numerous solid arguments against a playoff.


Like????

[texaspokieokie]

Go on...

funny like Joe Peschi.

[Caboose]

Like????

There have been a ton of these threads on this board. Dig them up and read through them.

[jersey sooner]

funny like Joe Peschi.

What, pokie, you don't like Pesci (no h)? Is it because he's from Jersey? :D :D :D

[texaspokieokie]

naw, he's OK, didn't know he was from Jersey. :D

liked him in "Casino" when they were using his head for a pinata.

funny in "my cousin vinnie". especially liked Marisa Tomei !!!

[OU_Sooners75]

There have been a ton of these threads on this board. Dig them up and read through them.


I have read a bunch of opinions...nothing solid.

[jersey sooner]

How can you leave out Home Alone 2?????????? The single greatest acting performance in the history of mankind.....Daniel Stern as Marvin "Marv" Merchants :D "Suck brick, kid!"

[jersey sooner]

Maybe we could use the "academics" angle to stop it from ever expanding. At least get some use out of it :D

[Leroy Lizard]

Like????

The biggest one of all, and one that college presidents understand but for obvious reasons cannot publicly air: College football is slowly (or not so slowly) spiraling out of control.

Right now Auburn may have to vacate its title. USC just vacated one of theirs. Oregon beating Auburn might not have saved anything because they could be in trouble too. tOSU is in hot water as well.

Once enough major powers get in trouble and the NCAA has to start vacating one victory after another, all is lost.

A playoff raises the stakes since it features only one winner. In the need to make sure that your school is not one of those slowly forced into the cellar, schools will need to cheat more and more.

In other words, the raw commercialization of the sport is having a nasty impact right now, and I think NCAA members realize that a playoff will only exacerbate the problem.

We need to go in the other direction. Yes, NCAA members don't always vote with the amateurism of the sport in mind, but I don't think they want to make this wholesale abandonment of principle. Because once you do, you can never go back.

Think: Long-term.

[OU_Sooners75]

What Liztard?

So because some idiots made some bad choices on how to handle their recruiting and time at the school, all of football is spiraling out of control?

Did I read that right?

What does recruiting violations have to do with a playoff?

You are aware that the BCS produces just one winner too, just in a biased way, right?

[Leroy Lizard]

What Liztard?

So because some idiots made some bad choices on how to handle their recruiting and time at the school, all of football is spiraling out of control?

Did I read that right?

What does recruiting violations have to do with a playoff?

You are aware that the BCS produces just one winner too, just in a biased way, right?

No, the existing bowl system produces many winners.

But you missed the point as usual: A college football playoff will raise the stakes on winning and losing. Even die-hard college football playoff proponents realize this.

Go back and read what I wrote, and this time try to avoid just reacting negatively. If you think about it, you might realize that my point is perfectly valid. The gross commercialization of college football IS a problem, whether you choose to deny it or not. We do need to re-examine what makes college football great, not just go blindly toward more and more abuses.

[OU_Sooners75]

No, the existing bowl system produces many winners.

But you missed the point as usual: A college football playoff will raise the stakes on winning and losing. Even die-hard college football playoff proponents realize this.

Go back and read what I wrote, and this time try to avoid just reacting negatively. If you think about it, you might realize that my point is perfectly valid. The gross commercialization of college football IS a problem, whether you choose to deny it or not. We do need to re-examine what makes college football great, not just go blindly toward more and more abuses.

And how many national champions each year? Oh yeah...that is what this is about, producing a real or truer national champion!

You can keep the minor bowls for the 6-6 teams. Make a playoff for those that deserve a shot.

That or we can always go back to having just 11 bowl games. et al 1980s and before!

[jersey sooner]

The biggest one of all, and one that college presidents understand but for obvious reasons cannot publicly air: College football is slowly (or not so slowly) spiraling out of control.

Right now Auburn may have to vacate its title. USC just vacated one of theirs. Oregon beating Auburn might not have saved anything because they could be in trouble too. tOSU is in hot water as well.

Once enough major powers get in trouble and the NCAA has to start vacating one victory after another, all is lost.

A playoff raises the stakes since it features only one winner. In the need to make sure that your school is not one of those slowly forced into the cellar, schools will need to cheat more and more.

In other words, the raw commercialization of the sport is having a nasty impact right now, and I think NCAA members realize that a playoff will only exacerbate the problem.

We need to go in the other direction. Yes, NCAA members don't always vote with the amateurism of the sport in mind, but I don't think they want to make this wholesale abandonment of principle. Because once you do, you can never go back.

Think: Long-term.

Unfortunately, you're spot on. It is pretty inevitable. So why not save face? I have a philosophical question for you. If you can compensate a kid to play football at your school with $30,000 worth of education per year, why can't you do the same with money?

[jersey sooner]

No, the existing bowl system produces many winners.

But you missed the point as usual: A college football playoff will raise the stakes on winning and losing. Even die-hard college football playoff proponents realize this.


I don't think that's true. The existing bowl system produces 8 (BCS Bowl) really big winners and 2 (BCS NCG) really really big winners. I don't think the stakes would be raised to the level you're implying.

EDIT: Especially if you still have pretty big bowls for teams that didn't make the playoff.

[Leroy Lizard]

And how many national champions each year? Oh yeah...that is what this is about, producing a real or truer national champion!

You can keep the minor bowls for the 6-6 teams. Make a playoff for those that deserve a shot.

That or we can always go back to having just 11 bowl games. et al 1980s and before!

You're playing dumb. You're pretending that the gross commercialization that a playoff will usher in will not materialize. It will, just as it did in college basketball (where the abuses are probably even greater than in college football).

I realize you want to counter every argument I make, but trying to deny the obvious is not going to serve you very well. A college football playoff WILL raise the stakes on winning and losing.

[Leroy Lizard]

I don't think that's true. The existing bowl system produces 8 (BCS Bowl) really big winners and 2 (BCS NCG) really really big winners. I don't think the stakes would be raised to the level you're implying.

To the level I'm implying?

Why raise the stakes at all?!?! This is a sport in serious trouble, so why advocate any change that is going to make it harder to field a competitive team in an honest fashion?

Look at the SEC lately and its abuses. Do you want that to happen nationally?

We need to go in the other direction.

[Leroy Lizard]

Unfortunately, you're spot on. It is pretty inevitable. So why not save face? I have a philosophical question for you. If you can compensate a kid to play football at your school with $30,000 worth of education per year, why can't you do the same with money?

Because that won't solve the problem. Once you make it acceptable to pay a player, then the argument shifts to "how much?" So schools cheat more than ever by supplementing the player's income illegally. And only a few schools can play that game.

Schools like Toledo really fear the whole aspect of paying players. They have little cash right now to give out, but a money race among NCAA teams will shut them out completely.

[Caboose]

I have read a bunch of opinions...nothing solid.

Oh oh.. clever. Any opposing reasons are just opinions... but your opinions are all valid solid indisputable facts.

Another reason these threads are pointless, the puerile intellectual dishonesty of the majority of the participants.

To sum up my position, I have read countless articles from playoff supporters, heard countless plans from playoff supporters, and participated in countless threads arguing the issue and the only honest and defensible reason I have heard for a playoff is that it would be fun, neat, and exciting. Every other claim has been thoroughly debunked.

Playoff supporters don't want a playoff because it would "work" or be "more fair" or "determine a true champion".... they want it because as a fan it would be fun to watch. Any other claim about what a playoff would do is pure fantasy.

[jersey sooner]

To the level I'm implying?

Why raise the stakes at all?!?! This is a sport in serious trouble, so why advocate any change that is going to make it harder to field a competitive team in an honest fashion?

Look at the SEC lately and its abuses. Do you want that to happen nationally?

We need to go in the other direction.

But it's not going to go in the other direction, as long as money still makes the world go round. And I don't agree that the same 10 teams playing in 1, 2, or 3 big money games is going to be any worse than 10 teams playing in 1 big money game.


Because that won't solve the problem. Once you make it acceptable to pay a player, then the argument shifts to "how much?" So schools cheat more than ever by supplementing the player's income illegally. And only a few schools can play that game.

Schools like Toledo really fear the whole aspect of paying players. They have little cash right now to give out, but a money race among NCAA teams will shut them out completely.

Ok, so make the rule that every kid gets the same percentage of it's school's football revenue. The best players will still be going to the best/money making schools, and nothing would change.

[MeMyself&Me]

And how many national champions each year? Oh yeah...that is what this is about, producing a real or truer national champion!

You can keep the minor bowls for the 6-6 teams. Make a playoff for those that deserve a shot.

That or we can always go back to having just 11 bowl games. et al 1980s and before!

Here we go with the "true champion" again. When are playoff people going to learn that that catch phrase doesn't work with people that don't want a playoff. We think putting championship emphasis on the regular season produces a truer champion.

[Leroy Lizard]

But it's not going to go in the other direction, as long as money still makes the world go round. And I don't agree that the same 10 teams playing in 1, 2, or 3 big money games is going to be any worse than 10 teams playing in 1 big money game.

This is called denial -- the naivete that the increase exposure and money will not have any adverse effects on the sport.

How long can we continue going down this path before we start realizing that the absurd overemphasis on winning is having a deleterious effect on our favorite sport?


Ok, so make the rule that every kid gets the same percentage of it's school's football revenue. The best players will still be going to the best/money making schools, and nothing would change.

Obviously you didn't understand a damn thing I wrote.

[Leroy Lizard]

Here we go with the "true champion" again. When are playoff people going to learn that that catch phrase doesn't work with people that don't want a playoff. We think putting championship emphasis on the regular season produces a truer champion.

Frankly, we need to drop this demand for a "true champion" bull**** altogether.

[MeMyself&Me]

Playoff supporters don't want a playoff because it would "work" or be "more fair" or "determine a true champion".... they want it because as a fan it would be fun to watch. Any other claim about what a playoff would do is pure fantasy.

Yup. And don't you dare dispute them either.

[jersey sooner]

Once you make it acceptable to pay a player, then the argument shifts to "how much?"


Ok, so make the rule that every kid gets the same percentage of it's school's football revenue. The best players will still be going to the best/money making schools, and nothing would change.

?

[jersey sooner]

We think putting championship emphasis on the regular season produces a truer champion.

So Auburn was the truest possible champion this year?

[Leroy Lizard]

?

Oh, brother.

Okay, I have patience, so I'll try again.


No matter how much you legally allow a school to pay, schools will still try to gain the upper hand by paying more.

Now, if you want to allow schools to pay so much that an athlete would not be tempted to accept an illegal handout, then you are talking about so much money that a school like Akron cannot compete at all.

Tying a payment to football revenue would gain acceptance from about 0% of the voting membership of the NCAA, because it is beyond stupid. (And you couldn't do it anyway because of the non-profit status of the athletic department.)

[jersey sooner]

No matter how much you legally allow a school to pay, schools will still try to gain the upper hand by paying more.

Didn't Auburn just pay $200,000 for Cam?


Now, if you want to allow schools to pay so much that an athlete would not be tempted to accept an illegal handout, then you are talking about so much money that a school like Akron cannot compete at all.

I still don't get this argument. What 5 star recruit has Akron ever signed? So unless you're talking about changing the scholarship limit from 85 to 150, the best players are still going to go to the best football programs, and the 2nd tier players are still going to have less to choose from. For the one-thousandth time, even if you start paying the players, nothing is really going to change!!!!

[Caboose]

Didn't Auburn just pay $200,000 for Cam?


How much was Auburn legally allowed to pay Cam?
How much more than that did they pay?
So if we increase the amount they can legally pay players, how much more than that amount would they still pay?

This isn't rocket surgery dude.

[jersey sooner]

So for the one-thousandth and one time, nothing would really change.


This isn't rocket surgery dude.

[Caboose]

So for the one-thousandth and one time, nothing would really change.


This isn't rocket surgery dude.

Then why are you proposing it if it wouldn't change anything other than officially change college football players into professional football players?

[Leroy Lizard]

Didn't Auburn just pay $200,000 for Cam?

Yes, they did. That shows you the lengths schools will go to bring in the best players. We don't need to institutionalize that type of behavior.


I still don't get this argument. What 5 star recruit has Akron ever signed? So unless you're talking about changing the scholarship limit from 85 to 150, the best players are still going to go to the best football programs, and the 2nd tier players are still going to have less to choose from.

Akron doesn't sign many 5-star players, if any at all, but they still want to sign good players that may choose their school because it's close by. You're adocating adopting a policy that will for all practical purposes make it impossible for them to get hardly anyone worth a damn.

This is fundamentally the rottenest argument made from playoff proponents: Because small schools suffer a disadvantage now, any new rule that places them at a bigger disadvantage is okay.

"Because some coaches cheat now, then it's okay to adopt a system that makes them cheat even more."

"Because some players don't go to class, then it's okay to adopt a system that makes it harder for them to succeed academically."

[Leroy Lizard]

So for the one-thousandth and one time, nothing would really change.

Just because a problem exists now doesn't mean it can't get worse. It can get worse, and it will.

[jersey sooner]

Just because a problem exists now doesn't mean it can't get worse. It can get worse, and it will.

Unless you attempt to control it.

[Leroy Lizard]

Unless you attempt to control it.

And one way to control it is to understand its causes. In college football, its the overzealous desire to win above all else. A playoff only makes it worse.

[jersey sooner]

Agree to disagree. And by the way lizzy, I really hate that every post I make is associated with you. If you tell me what the **** your avatar is, I'll take it down

[Leroy Lizard]

Agree to disagree.

Oh, wow.


And by the way lizzy, I really hate that every post I make is associated with you. If you tell me what the **** your avatar is, I'll take it down

I have no problem letting everyone in SF know that I wanted OU to beat Nebraska in 1971. So go ahead and leave it up.

[OU_Sooners75]

Here we go with the "true champion" again. When are playoff people going to learn that that catch phrase doesn't work with people that don't want a playoff. We think putting championship emphasis on the regular season produces a truer champion.


So the Superbowl champion isn't a true champion?
So the NBA finals winner is not a true champion?
So the winner of March Madness is not a true Champion?

Tell me something...if you have a system that is headed by a ranking system that allows human bias and judgments to determine who the two best teams in the nation are....how is that truer?

How can you sit right there on your *** and try to convince me that TCU could or couldn't have beaten Oregon or Auburn? You can try until you are blue in the face...but the fact remains, the biased opinions never gave TCU or any other team outside of Auburn or Oregon (which had one of the WORST SCHEDULES) the chance to settle it on the field.

How can you sit right there and tell me that OU couldn't have beaten either of those three teams?

What we have now is a big reward for a media favored team or teams to get into a game that some people want to say is a national championship game.

When in fact, 2 teams had to play their schedule and one TBD opponent to get that chance.

The only way we are going to settle the debate about a true national champion is if they played a huge *** round robin followed by a playoff system.

That is not feasible. However, one way to make it truer is by putting in place a system where the best teams can find out...you win you move on. You lose you go home.

You can suck the nuts of the media bias all you want...it is by no means a way to crown a truer champion!

[jersey sooner]

And for everyone that says the BCS is so good to us, don't be too sure a playoff wouldn't have been better.
'01 we had the defense to make a run
'03 we would have got our mojo back right away against someone not named LSU, and our offense wouldn't have had to cool off for a month
'04 *** ****** *** *** ***** ** ***** **** **
'07 I'm not too sure we weren't the best team by the end of the year
'08 our offense wouldn't have had to cool off for a month
'10 I'm not too sure we weren't the best team by the end of the year

And if we somehow drop the FSU game, and Oregon runs the table in a weak Pac-12 and an SEC team only loses one game, guess what's gonna happen?

[MeMyself&Me]

So the Superbowl champion isn't a true champion?
So the NBA finals winner is not a true champion?
So the winner of March Madness is not a true Champion?

Tell me something...if you have a system that is headed by a ranking system that allows human bias and judgments to determine who the two best teams in the nation are....how is that truer?

How can you sit right there on your *** and try to convince me that TCU could or couldn't have beaten Oregon or Auburn? You can try until you are blue in the face...but the fact remains, the biased opinions never gave TCU or any other team outside of Auburn or Oregon (which had one of the WORST SCHEDULES) the chance to settle it on the field.

How can you sit right there and tell me that OU couldn't have beaten either of those three teams?

What we have now is a big reward for a media favored team or teams to get into a game that some people want to say is a national championship game.

When in fact, 2 teams had to play their schedule and one TBD opponent to get that chance.

The only way we are going to settle the debate about a true national champion is if they played a huge *** round robin followed by a playoff system.

That is not feasible. However, one way to make it truer is by putting in place a system where the best teams can find out...you win you move on. You lose you go home.

You can suck the nuts of the media bias all you want...it is by no means a way to crown a truer champion!

I've already said I don't like the human component. That's a selection criteria though, and not a method. For instance, you have have a playoff with a human selection component too. You can also have a bowl post season without a human selection component. By focusing on that for a BCS vs playoff debate, you are being dishonest.

I won't try to say that TCU couldn't have beaten Auburn or Oregon because, as they say, anyone can win on any given day. I would say that TCU didn't deserve the chance because they had a weaker strength of schedule than the other two. I know you're going to come back with they couldn't have had a better schedule but they could have. LOTS of non-autoqualifiers had better schedules than Oregon. Just not any of them that were undefeated.

[jersey sooner]

I've already said I don't like the human component. That's a selection criteria though, and not a method. For instance, you have have a playoff with a human selection component too. You can also have a bowl post season without a human selection component. By focusing on that for a BCS vs playoff debate, you are being dishonest.

I won't try to say that TCU couldn't have beaten Auburn or Oregon because, as they say, anyone can win on any given day. I would say that TCU didn't deserve the chance because they had a weaker strength of schedule than the other two. I know you're going to come back with they couldn't have had a better schedule but they could have. LOTS of non-autoqualifiers had better schedules than Oregon. Just not any of them that were undefeated.

Did Auburn (04) deserve the chance?

[OU_Sooners75]

I've already said I don't like the human component. That's a selection criteria though, and not a method. For instance, you have have a playoff with a human selection component too. You can also have a bowl post season without a human selection component. By focusing on that for a BCS vs playoff debate, you are being dishonest.

I won't try to say that TCU couldn't have beaten Auburn or Oregon because, as they say, anyone can win on any given day. I would say that TCU didn't deserve the chance because they had a weaker strength of schedule than the other two. I know you're going to come back with they couldn't have had a better schedule but they could have. LOTS of non-autoqualifiers had better schedules than Oregon. Just not any of them that were undefeated.

No, I have conference champs and a ranking. the ranking can that of x number of computers averaged out.

Here is my real proposal...even though I said 16 teams before talking about a fair system. I think 12 would be best...because we all know the MAC and Sunbelt will likely never produce championship caliber teams.

[OU_Sooners75]

Sorry, forgot to paste it.




Rules:
All teams must be eligible to participate in post season play.
Conference Champions from the ACC, Big East, Big 12, Big 10, PAC 10, and SEC get automatic bids.
The final six spots will be filled by ranking. Ranking will be of an average of x number of computer rankings. No limits on how many teams from one conference that can be invited.
The seeding will be determined by the same ranking system, regardless of conference standing. Conference champion does not dictate seeding. Top four in ranking will get top four seeds.
Top four seeds will get a bye the first round.
Playoff will start one week after the end of the regular season with the championship round being two weeks after the semi-final round.
First round will be home game for the higher seeded team.
Second round will be home game for the higher seeded team
Semi-finals will be home game for the higher seeded team
Championship round will be hosted by a city, not bowl committee.
Any city that wishes to be drawn must pay $5 million to be placed in the draw. The entry is good until drawn, no recurring costs.
Host City will be announced each Final Four the season before. Example: Miami, FL is drawn for the 2012-2013 season. The announcement will be made during the Final Four of the 2011-2012 season. This give the city approximately 9 months to prepare for the game.
Each city can only host championship game once every 7 years.
In order for a city to host a championship game again, they must wait until the 7 years have passed and then pay the draw price.
City must also have football stadium that can host at least 75,000 fans.
Home teams must pay $1,000,000 to visiting team. Home team receives all gate and concession sells.
Home team must agree to give visiting team at least 10% of the tickets to sale to the visiting team fans. If visiting team cannot sell all their tickets, home team gets rights to them.
Each championship round team will receive equal amount of tickets and do not have to pay for any unsold tickets.
Championship round teams will receive $4mil each. Each of their conference members will receive $1mil each.
Each conference that is represented in the playoff but does not reach the championship round will receive $1mil for each team in the conference that did not participate in playoff.
The Bowl system mains intact for those that do not make the playoffs.


The championship round thing...is just an idea....trying to get away from a 4 or 5 location rotation. And then we can keep the corrupt bowl committees at bay. :)

[OU_Sooners75]

TCU and Oregon's schedules were pretty damn comparable. They both were an average rank in the high 50s low 60s.

Just depends on which system you look at.

TCU being slightly lower than Oregons.

If schedules are what determines the BCS title game...then neither Auburn or Oregon deserved to be in it.

[jersey sooner]

If schedules are what determines the BCS title game...then neither Auburn or Oregon deserved to be in it.

:eek:

[OU_Sooners75]

:eek:


LOL....well, its true.

If people want to crucify TCu because of their schedule, well Oregon and Auburn did not have the toughest schedules either!

:texan:

Besides, Auburn will be giving their trophy back before too long anyway.

[I Am Right]

#1 too many games #2 Too much money and traveling from fans #3 makes regular season meaningless and #4 Hurt Student athelets

[OU_Sooners75]

#1 too many games #2 Too much money and traveling from fans #3 makes regular season meaningless and #4 Hurt Student athelets.


you have no ****ing clue what you are talking about, do you?

1. At most it is 4 more games
2. Fans travel each week anyway. If you cannot make, you werent going to anyway.
3. I am still waiting for a valid reason how it makes the regular season meaningless. All you tools that say this say the same thing.
4. Hurt Student athlete? Please elaborate further.


What is funny is D-1AA can do it...yet if D-1A does it is too many games or too much travel or too much this and the other..

Bunch of weak *** excuse to be honest with you!

[OU_Sooners75]

To many games...I bet they were saying that back in the day when we would only play 6 games and the season expanded to 8.

I bet they were saying that when the season expanded to 10. I bet they were saying that when it went to 11. I bet the said the same when a team (BYU) could play 15.

They never said it when they regulated it to 12 games 13 if you played in a conference ccg.

[jersey sooner]

I actually really really like that format. Is that your piece of art? And I thought of a pretty cool idea to go along with it. Instead of bowl affiliations, site affiliations for the semi-final round, or even the second round. For instance, if the semi-final round has the top 4 seeds in the tournament and they are:
1 OU
2 Alabama
3 Oregon
4 LSU

OU would play LSU in the new Cotton Bowl, and Bama would get Oregon in the Super Dome. Keep some tradition alive.

But I will say that 12 is the absolute maximum number it could be in order to keep the regular season in tact. I'd personally prefer 10 just so there are fewer wildcards, which would resemble the fight there is now for the few spots at the top, except it would be a little lower. It would keep more of the excitement and importance of the regular season, not that this would take too much away. But I really do like this too.

[Leroy Lizard]

To many games...I bet they were saying that back in the day when we would only play 6 games and the season expanded to 8.

I bet they were saying that when the season expanded to 10. I bet they were saying that when it went to 11. I bet the said the same when a team (BYU) could play 15.

They never said it when they regulated it to 12 games 13 if you played in a conference ccg.

Yep, the desire to increase the number of games and teams is tough to resist. We say we only want four teams in a playoff, but... my team didn't get in so I think we need to go to 8. But that didn't work so how about 12? But we can get 16 in the same number of weeks.

For the most part, you made my argument. Once we go down this path, the number of games and teams will just keep expanding until everyone hates it. But then it will be too late.

[OU_Sooners75]

Yep, the desire to increase the number of games and teams is tough to resist. We say we only want four teams in a playoff, but... my team didn't get in so I think we need to go to 8. But that didn't work so how about 12? But we can get 16 in the same number of weeks.

For the most part, you made my argument. Once we go down this path, the number of games and teams will just keep expanding until everyone hates it. But then it will be too late.


12 teams is 1/10 of what is in D-1A football.

They only way they should expand the field is if it is justified...and the only real way I think it is justified is if they add more schools to D-1A football...and if they do, 2 more for every 20 teams. So, IMO, we go to 14 once/if there are 140 teams.

[OU_Sooners75]

I actually really really like that format. Is that your piece of art? And I thought of a pretty cool idea to go along with it. Instead of bowl affiliations, site affiliations for the semi-final round, or even the second round. For instance, if the semi-final round has the top 4 seeds in the tournament and they are:
1 OU
2 Alabama
3 Oregon
4 LSU

OU would play LSU in the new Cotton Bowl, and Bama would get Oregon in the Super Dome. Keep some tradition alive.

But I will say that 12 is the absolute maximum number it could be in order to keep the regular season in tact. I'd personally prefer 10 just so there are fewer wildcards, which would resemble the fight there is now for the few spots at the top, except it would be a little lower. It would keep more of the excitement and importance of the regular season, not that this would take too much away. But I really do like this too.


yes, that is my piece of art.

[Leroy Lizard]

12 teams is 1/10 of what is in D-1A football.

They only way they should expand the field is if it is justified...

Heh. Should. Heh.

The only way that teams SHOULD win is by following all NCAA rules.

The only way that companies SHOULD compete is by acting ethically.

Lovely word, "should." It just makes all the little problems go away.


And now, back to the program "Playoff Fantasies, Part XXII."

[OU_Sooners75]

Heh. Should. Heh.

The only way that teams SHOULD win is by following all NCAA rules.

The only way that companies SHOULD compete is by acting ethically.

Lovely word, "should." It just makes all the little problems go away.


And now, back to the program "Playoff Fantasies, Part XXII."

You are the one that brought up expansion...don't like the answer, dont ****ing bring up the topic.


Next?

[Leroy Lizard]

You are the one that brought up expansion...don't like the answer, dont ****ing bring up the topic.

LOL! I love it!

Expansion won't be a problem, because playoffs SHOULDN'T expand. :rolleyes:

[OU_Sooners75]

LOL! I love it!

Expansion won't be a problem, because teams SHOULDN'T expand. :rolleyes:


So you read more than what is there? The usual Liztarded spin!

Now then liztard, since you baited me....Where did I say expansion is not a problem?

However, since you started the topic, I did say that the only way they should expand is if they get 20 more teams in D-1A football...and in that expansion it should only be 2 teams.

I think 10% of the field is a pretty good amount in a playoff.

Next?

[Leroy Lizard]

So you read more than what is there? The usual Liztarded spin!

Now then liztard, since you baited me....Where did I say expansion is not a problem?

Right here:


They only way they should expand the field is if it is justified...and the only real way I think it is justified is if they add more schools to D-1A football...and if they do, 2 more for every 20 teams. So, IMO, we go to 14 once/if there are 140 teams.

You're going to get 16 teams whether you like it or not, becuase reality doesn't care what SHOULD happen.

[OU_Sooners75]

Right here:



You're going to get 16 teams whether you like it or not, becuase reality doesn't care what SHOULD happen.


And yet, I never said that expansion would not be a problem...

Keep trying dip****.

Hell, even with 16 teams, it is only at max 4 extra games.


next?

[Leroy Lizard]

And yet, I never said that expansion would not be a problem...

Well, I'll let you and Jersey argue over the number of teams in the playoff.

Oh, I'm sorry. Let me try again...

I'll let you and Jersey argue over the number of teams that SHOULD be in the playoff... when pigs fly.



Hell, even with 16 teams, it is only at max 4 extra games.


next?

Gee, only four games?!?! Is that all? That changes everything. :rolleyes:

[OU_Sooners75]

Well, I'll let you and Jersey argue over the number of teams in the playoff.

Oh, I'm sorry. Let me try again...

I'll let you and Jersey argue over the number of teams that SHOULD be in the playoff... when pigs fly.




Gee, only four games?!?! Is that all? That changes everything. :rolleyes:


Man, for a "professor" you are one stupid mofo! :pop:

[Leroy Lizard]

Man, for a "professor" you are one stupid mofo! :pop:

Wow, you playoff proponents are just, like, convincing. Man, you should schedule a meeting with David Boren. I'm sure he would like your far out ideas, man.

[OU_Sooners75]

Wow, you playoff proponents are just, like, convincing. Man, you should schedule a meeting with David Boren. I'm sure he would like your far out ideas, man.

At least it is an idea...not some BS trolling and flaming drivel you bring to the table.

How much you spin...it is amazing you can see straight enough to type.

[Curly Bill]

371 posts and you peeps are still talking about this? :rolleyes:

We'll have the Middle East straightened out before we arrive at any consensus on D-1 football playoffs. Or hopefully the continued lack thereof. ;)

[Curly Bill]

...and glad to see my 1-star rating for this thread is still holding strong! :D

[OU_Sooners75]

371 posts and you peeps are still talking about this? :rolleyes:

We'll have the Middle East straightened out before we arrive at any consensus on D-1 football playoffs.

IDK about that. The mid east has been a powderkeg for nearly 2 thousand years now.

[OU_Sooners75]

...and glad to see my 1-star rating for this thread is still holding strong! :D


FIRE VENABLES!!!!!:P

[OU_Sooners75]

Oh and once it hits page 20...I am done. :D

[Leroy Lizard]

Damn you pappy!!!!

[OU_Sooners75]

Come on...page 12 before midnight shutdown!

[OU_Sooners75]

So liztard, what playoff format you like?

[OU_Sooners75]

Damn you pappy!!!!


that wasnt pappy...that was Curly Bill.

[OU_Sooners75]

Yeah...page 20...Im done with this thread!

[Curly Bill]

You'll be back, you can't help yourself.

[OU_Sooners75]

You'll be back, you can't help yourself.


No I wont be...(Still page 20)...hehe

Later from the thread. :P

[StoopTroup]

I have 60,000 reasons to keep the BCS. :P

[MeMyself&Me]

20 pages and all we have are "I want a playoff and if you don't, you're stupid!" That's what it always boils down to.

[pphilfran]

20 pages and all we have are "I want a playoff and if you don't, you're stupid!" That's what it always boils down to.

This about sums it up...

_JmA2ClUvUY

[Leroy Lizard]

20 pages and all we have are "I want a playoff and if you don't, you're stupid!" That's what it always boils down to.

Spot on.

[texaspokieokie]

they showed part of that clip with the babies, this morning on "Fox & Friends.

[Jacie]

20 pages and all we have are "I want a playoff and if you don't, you're stupid!" That's what it always boils down to.

That is what usually happens when people who are open minded try to discuss something with people who are close minded . . .

[MeMyself&Me]

I see. So if I don't agree with you, I'm closed minded. That's pretty much the same thing as what I said.

[Leroy Lizard]

I am absolutley open-minded when it comes to a playoff. If anyone offers a playoff that is designed to IMPROVE the current state of college football, I will be the first to consider it.

With its overzealous focus on winning over competitive spirit, academic fraud, and cheating, college football has a lot of problems.* A winner solves problems. A loser uses the problems as excuses to ignore them.

* Not having a true champion is not a serious problem for college football. The game has been played for over 100 years without one and people have still enjoyed it immensely.

[OU_Sooners75]

The game has been played for over 100 years without one and people have still enjoyed it immensely.


I do have to make a comment on this one...and Ill let it die....thanks Leroy for bring this up.

The only part you have correct in this statement...is that it has been played for over 100 years.

However, nearly the first 40 years of the sport, there was only one division and no NCAA. The NCAA was formed around 1910 (college football started in 1869). It was not until right around 1950 when the NAIA was formed (previously named the NAIB because it was only for basketball which formed in 1940). Also in the 1950s the NCAA split the sport into different divisions based on size of the college or university and the amount of fans that attend the games.

Until that time, there were plenty of arguments about college football. Football as we know it, would not be here today if it had not been for President Teddy Roosevelt demanding for rule changes thanks to too many injuries and deaths from the sport.

Anyway...technically, you are partially correct. Football, particularly college football since that is where football started, has been a very controversial sport from day one. And at one point in history it was about to be a banned sport in America.

But yes, since the formation of the NCAA and then later the NAIA, it has immensely been enjoyed by the fans and public.

[MeMyself&Me]

I do have to make a comment on this one...and Ill let it die....thanks Leroy for bring this up.

The only part you have correct in this statement...is that it has been played for over 100 years.

However, nearly the first 40 years of the sport, there was only one division and no NCAA. The NCAA was formed around 1910 (college football started in 1869). It was not until right around 1950 when the NAIA was formed (previously named the NAIB because it was only for basketball which formed in 1940). Also in the 1950s the NCAA split the sport into different divisions based on size of the college or university and the amount of fans that attend the games.

Until that time, there were plenty of arguments about college football. Football as we know it, would not be here today if it had not been for President Teddy Roosevelt demanding for rule changes thanks to too many injuries and deaths from the sport.

Anyway...technically, you are partially correct. Football, particularly college football since that is where football started, has been a very controversial sport from day one. And at one point in history it was about to be a banned sport in America.

But yes, since the formation of the NCAA and then later the NAIA, it has immensely been enjoyed by the fans and public.

How is that supposed to make me want a playoff? I'm not sure what the point of that post is unless you're just saying that things change. But saying things change is no where near saying ALL change is good. This post sounds a lot like the way Leroid argues (which I've had on ignore for a long time because of his countless pointless posts). What a way to make an exit! :rolleyes:

[OU_Sooners75]

How is that supposed to make me want a playoff? I'm not sure what the point of that post is unless you're just saying that things change. But saying things change is no where near saying ALL change is good. This post sounds a lot like the way Leroid argues (which I've had on ignore for a long time because of his countless pointless posts). What a way to make an exit! :rolleyes:


I am not talking about a playoff anymore. The anti-playoff guys dont want one and the pro-playoff guys want one.

I don't seeing either side convincing one or the other.


With that say, football has been filled with controversy from its first year. That is the point.

Good thing you couldn't read it on the post at the end.

[Leroy Lizard]

I am not talking about a playoff anymore. The anti-playoff guys dont want one and the pro-playoff guys want one.

I don't seeing either side convincing one or the other.


With that say, football has been filled with controversy from its first year. That is the point.

Good thing you couldn't read it on the post at the end.

About all we can do is shrug and walk away from this one.

[TIMB0B]

ubd8yZuBEj8

[Leroy Lizard]

Why shore nuff... we need one of them thar playoffs to fix our problems in football. Hick hick hick!!!

Thanks, Timbob, for putting a face to those behind playoffs.

[MeMyself&Me]

The anti-playoff guys dont want one and the pro-playoff guys want one.

I don't seeing either side convincing one or the other.

That's the smartest thing you've said in this thread. I can agree with you on that one. I think those of us that don't want a post season tournament see college football as something unique in sports and that uniqueness is part of what is its attraction for us. There are all kinds of other sports that have a post season tournament and we can see that we prefer college football to not look like those other sports so we won't be changing our minds just because you say it's possible and that it's the way you want it.

I do think it will happen eventually. At some point, the university presidents will decide the money difference is worth it and when it happens, it will be a 16 team format (I don't think there will be a consensus among them that will like it with less teams than that). Until then, when the issue comes up, those of us that don't want it need to speak up more... too many people think that everyone wants a post season tournament.

[JRAM]

WHAT A CROCK! Playoffs will never happen as long as colleges have presidents and athletic directors!

[Curly Bill]

That is what usually happens when people who are open minded try to discuss something with people who are close minded . . .

This is one of the dumbest posts I've ever read on here. You want to go back and think about it? :O

[OU_Sooners75]

WHAT A CROCK! Playoffs will never happen as long as colleges have presidents and athletic directors!


So I am to assume by your comment, that App. State or Delaware don't have presidents or ADs?

[Leroy Lizard]

Page 21, dude.

[OU_Sooners75]

wow, look Liztard can count. :D

[Leroy Lizard]

wow, look Liztard can count. :D

You and StoopTroup should try to combine forces.

[OU_Sooners75]

You and StoopTroup should try to combine forces.


What for?

[Leroy Lizard]

What for?

For whatever it is you're trying to do.

[StoopTroup]

For whatever it is you're trying to do.

You mean get you to post intelligently?

[StoopTroup]

I am absolutley open-minded when it comes to a playoff. If anyone offers a playoff that is designed to IMPROVE the current state of college football, I will be the first to consider it.

With its overzealous focus on winning over competitive spirit, academic fraud, and cheating, college football has a lot of problems.* A winner solves problems. A loser uses the problems as excuses to ignore them.

* Not having a true champion is not a serious problem for college football. The game has been played for over 100 years without one and people have still enjoyed it immensely.

See.....right there.

You spoke your peace. Let it go.

Everyone knows you think the World is corrupt. NEWS FLASH! WORLD CORRUPT ! ! ! LIZARD TO CHANGE IT ALL SOON ! ! !

If you weren't so pathetic and debate everything into some sort of logic loop with no attempt to accept that the World has always been corrupt....we'd all stay off your ***. You don't want us off your *** though. That's why you are here.....to win the SoonerFan Insane Poster of the Decade Award.

[Leroy Lizard]

See.....right there.

You spoke you peace.

Great. Tonto the Indian is now posting on SoonerFans.

[pphilfran]

See.....right there.

You spoke you peace. Let it go.

Everyone knows you think the World is corrupt. NEWS FLASH! WORLD CORRUPT ! ! ! LIZARD TO CHANGE IT ALL SOON ! ! !

If you weren't so pathetic and debate everything into some sort of logic loop with no attempt to accept that the World has always been corrupt....we'd all stay off your ***. You don't want us off your *** though. That's why you are here.....to win the SoonerFan Insane Poster of the Decade Award.

Others are in the runnin'?

[StoopTroup]

Great. Tonto the Indian is now posting on SoonerFans.

Another sign you've been away from the Reservation way to long....

[StoopTroup]

Others are in the runnin'?

I think most of them left....

[pphilfran]

Hell, I like LL...most of the time I agree with him...

[StoopTroup]

Hell, I like LL...most of the time I agree with him...

That's the funny thing. I think a playoff might be a great idea but I just don't see how it will ever happen the way the fans want it to happen. So...I actually agreed with Leroid in a really weird Alice In wonderland down the rabbit hole way......

[Mississippi Sooner]

I'm impartial to everyone on a fairly equal basis.

[OU_Sooners75]

For whatever it is you're trying to do.


What exactly do you think I am trying to do?

Since your *** has arrived, I have argued and humored myself with you...You are like that favorite toy I had when I was a kid!

Just cant help but mess with you!

:P

[StoopTroup]

I hear Japanese radiation makes some animals really paranoid....

[Leroy Lizard]

What exactly do you think I am trying to do?

Since your *** has arrived, I have argued and humored myself with you...You are like that favorite toy I had when I was a kid!

Just cant help but mess with you!

:P

Sounds like you joined the Legion of the Obsessed. My fan club just grows bigger and bigger each day.

[StoopTroup]

Sounds like you joined the Legion of the Obsessed. My fan club just grows bigger and bigger each day.

By obsessed.....do you mean that group of friends you said want you to die a slow and horrible death?

http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3191098&postcount=14

[Leroy Lizard]

By obsessed.....do you mean that group of friends you said want you to die a slow and horrible death?

http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3191098&postcount=14

That one's only worth one :rolleyes: .

[OU_Sooners75]

Sounds like you joined the Legion of the Obsessed. My fan club just grows bigger and bigger each day.


Maybe you should learn the definition of obsession.

You fit the bill quite well. ;)

[StoopTroup]

He doesn't seem bored to me....he's feeding again like a fruit bat