6 reasons for playoffs [Archive] - SoonerFans.com Message Boards

OU_Sooners75

3/27/2011, 04:05 PM

Why NOT to have a playoff in football?

1. Kill the excitement of the regular season.

Yeah, let me tell you the excitement would be totally shot to hell! :rolleyes:

I can tell you what it would kill though...the fact that you have to be popular in the polls and with the media to get a chance at the national title!

Sure, a 1 or 2 loss team would be able to make it, so would a 3 or 4 loss team...as long as they were their conference champion.

Meaning, in the regular season you would start seeing more top notch non-conference games being played between the tradition rich schools that seem to always have a run at the BCS title.

It would also mean teams like Florida can schedule more games against teams that are not directional or FCS caliber!

A playoff would in fact make the season more exciting, but the conference play would be more important than all 12-13 games.

OU_Sooners75

3/27/2011, 04:07 PM

Also SoonerinLondon, I love watching the regular season of the NFL...and they have a playoff...so the excitement is not lost at all.

I love the anti-playoff people...they use the same damn arguments all the time...and the only true one they use it that it will kill the excitement of the season....LMFAO

Flagstaffsooner

3/27/2011, 04:23 PM

Why NOT to have a playoff in football?

1. Kill the excitement of the regular season.

2. The ncaa would have control of it.

Flagstaffsooner

3/27/2011, 04:25 PM

SoonerinLondon

3/27/2011, 04:42 PM

rekamrettuB

3/27/2011, 05:02 PM

Why do we need a playoff in football?

1. There would be a TRUE National Champion

What is a "TRUE" champion of anything? It's just winning a tournament. Look at it this way; if the 12 seed in the Big XII tournament won that tourney would you crown them "TRUE" Big XII Champions?

I can tell you what it would kill though...the fact that you have to be popular in the polls and with the media to get a chance at the national title!

Sure, a 1 or 2 loss team would be able to make it, so would a 3 or 4 loss team...as long as they were their conference champion.

Meaning, in the regular season you would start seeing more top notch non-conference games being played between the tradition rich schools that seem to always have a run at the BCS title.
It would also mean teams like Florida can schedule more games against teams that are not directional or FCS caliber!

Popularity would still be relevant when it comes seeding time and at larges unless you are going strictly conference champions. And if you are then you just eliminated all 4 Final Four teams (post season tourneys aside...you won't have those in football).

Also, I think it would eliminate more non-conference games scheduled against powerhouses. Why risk losses (seeds) and injury when all you have to do is win your conference? The OOC becomes all but meaningless.

85sooners

3/27/2011, 05:03 PM

Playoffs!!

jersey sooner

3/27/2011, 05:15 PM

We'd get to see undefeated teams losing games by sitting guys to rest for the playoffs, ala the NFL.

Every game is a playoff in college now. It's much more fun during the regular season than the NFL, CBB, NBA or MLB. March madness is great, but the season is a 6 of 10. NFL playoffs are great, but the last 4 games of the season are thrown away by teams who can't improve their position. The NBA and MLB seasons are increasingly ignored.

Keep the fun in CFB.

What if you could keep the fun and still have it played on the field? I've long pondered what system would be best for college football, and I'm pretty set on this:

10 team format

6 BCS conference champions get auto-bid
highest ranked non-aq/independent gets auto-bid
3 wildcards given to the 3 highest ranked teams who didn't get auto-bid

You then seed everyone by ranking

You have a wildcard weekend with the 10 seed playing at the 7 seeds home field, and the 9 seed playing at the 8 seeds home field

The reason this works is because if you play in a BCS conference, win your conference and your guaranteed a spot. If you don't, don't complain. You had a chance to win it on the field. The people who make the argument for a 16 team playoff where every conference champion gets a place should go **** themselves. There is absolutely no reason on earth that the winner of the WAC should automatically get a place in a playoff. This is college football, not college basketball. They need to be put at a disadvantage for the level of competition they play anyway. But if you take the highest ranked non-aq/independent, the little guys still get a guaranteed spot every year. And on the years when there are 2 really good non-aq/independent teams (09), they should be good enough to get in with a wildcard. By taking the 3 highest ranked teams as wildcards, you guarantee that no top 10 team who doesn't win an auto bid will get in. And that's the way it should be anyway. If you want 16 because you want to give every conference an auto-bid, shut your mouth. If you want 16 because you want the 16 best teams, it waters down the importance of every regular season game. It really is just as important to preserve the importance of the regular season as it is to have a playoff. But with this system, it gives guarantees everyone who deserves to be in a spot (conference winner/best non-aq), and the regular season loses nothing. Teams would still have to play for the highest ranking possible (like now where they play for the #1 and 2 ranking) because should you not win your conference on the field, you need one of 3 wildcard spots. Believe me, no one would just assume they're going to win the conference and take a couple games off.

jersey sooner

3/27/2011, 05:31 PM

What is a "TRUE" champion of anything? It's just winning a tournament. Look at it this way; if the 12 seed in the Big XII tournament won that tourney would you crown them "TRUE" Big XII Champions?

Exactly. The 12 seed doesn't deserve a chance to be playing for it anyway, in football terms anyway.

Popularity would still be relevant when it comes seeding time and at larges unless you are going strictly conference champions. And if you are then you just eliminated all 4 Final Four teams (post season tourneys aside...you won't have those in football).

You need to have popularity (rankings) be relevant. That's how you would preserve the best regular season in sports. But you also need to reward the (big) conference champions with an auto-bid, so it can be said you had a chance to win it on the field.

Also, I think it would eliminate more non-conference games scheduled against powerhouses. Why risk losses (seeds) and injury when all you have to do is win your conference? The OOC becomes all but meaningless.

It would be exactly the same, because you would have both ways of getting in. You wouldn't know if winning that big non-conference game is what you needed to be ranked higher (wildcard), or if losing it wouldn't matter because you wound up winning your conference (auto-bid).

agoo758

3/27/2011, 05:46 PM

Why NOT to have a playoff in football?

1. Kill the excitement of the regular season.

That's a good enough reason right there.

jumperstop

3/27/2011, 05:49 PM

agoo758

3/27/2011, 06:01 PM

People would still complain. If you seriously think conference winners should get an auto bid that's dumb, Uconn would have been in it this year over 20 more deserving teams. If the chips fell the right way they could bum **** their way into a championship, because they play in a ****ty conference. If there is a playoff, it should be four teams at most, just to sort things out in case there are more than two undefeated teams.

But then the same main problem still exists? Oh, what about Mr. number 5 in the country? Surely he is worthy? The playoff system is soooooo screwed up and is never right!:mack:

Could any proponents of a playoff please explain how this great and all-wise playoff system will solve the problem of leaving a possibly worthy team out of the equation?

OU_Sooners75

3/27/2011, 06:03 PM

OU_Sooners75

3/27/2011, 06:05 PM

To bad all you anti-playoff people are stuck in the old days of glory.

1. There are WAAAAY to many bowl games. rendering the bowl system useless nowadays.
2. Look at the Fiesta Bowl first when looking at corruption in the big Bowls! When the bowl games are offering presidents and ADs all expense paid vacations, then there is something very wrong with that!
3. Until there is a playoff of some sort, then how can we actually have ANY TEAM claim to be a true national champion?

OU_Sooners75

3/27/2011, 06:18 PM

But then the same main problem still exists? Oh, what about Mr. number 5 in the country? Surely he is worthy? The playoff system is soooooo screwed up and is never right!:mack:

Could any proponents of a playoff please explain how this great and all-wise playoff system will solve the problem of leaving a possibly worthy team out of the equation?

As we all know you will never please everyone. However, let me give just an example of a playoff system.

1. 16 teams. That is just 4 extra games.
2. All conference champions (11) are invited, regardless of conference affiliation.
3. Using an RPI or BCS type ranking, the other five teams would be determined by the highest ranked teams that are eligible for post season play. Example. if #4 was not a conference champion and they are eligible for postseason, then they would be in the tourney. Same for the other 4 open slots.
4. There would not be a limit on how many teams from one conference could be in the playoff. If the SEC has the next top 5 teams that are not conference champs, then they would all go.
5. You would also use the RPI or BCS type rankings for seedings. Top four conference champions would get a home-field game for the first round.
6. Top four remaining seeded teams would host second round games.
7. Using a rotation of the top 4 bowl games (Sugar, Rose, Orange, and Cotton), will host the semifinal round and the championship round. The lone left out bowl would be rotated back in the following season.

Granted this is only an example and far from perfect...but it would be a very good start. The brain trust of the NCAA can work out the actual rules and refine them to make it more viable.

It is not like a playoff would not generate a ton of money, it would both for the NCAA and the college communities...but that money would be going to the NCAA and schools, not to some bowl committee that is only interested in hosting games for money or that expects a school to sell so many tickets or they would have to play for them...even though they are suppose to be non-profit organizations.

rekamrettuB

3/27/2011, 06:19 PM

OU_Sooners75

3/27/2011, 06:25 PM

What is a "TRUE" champion of anything? It's just winning a tournament. Look at it this way; if the 12 seed in the Big XII tournament won that tourney would you crown them "TRUE" Big XII Champions?

Popularity would still be relevant when it comes seeding time and at larges unless you are going strictly conference champions. And if you are then you just eliminated all 4 Final Four teams (post season tourneys aside...you won't have those in football).

Also, I think it would eliminate more non-conference games scheduled against powerhouses. Why risk losses (seeds) and injury when all you have to do is win your conference? The OOC becomes all but meaningless.

Well, considering in football, you would be a conference champion on the field...then yes they would be. There would be no conference tournament for these teams...so the regular season is their conference tournament.

And if you think that the bigger schools would not schedule each other more often with a playoff, you are wrong.

Yeah, the lose, they would hurt their seeding, but they win their conference title, they would still get a chance at playing for a national championship thanks to the playoff.

As it is now, we do not really see a large number of top tradition rich schools playing each other because the BCS dictates it. If you lose, you are pretty much out of the hunt for a national title.

however, you lose when a playoff is in place, at least you can still make it to the playoff and win the title.

OU_Sooners75

3/27/2011, 06:30 PM

Nobody is arguing for the bowl systems. I agree 100%...there are way too many and most suck. Would much rather have playoff over bowl system but it would hurt the regular season we all know and love.

This is where I disagree.

If you see more teams like OU and USC or OU and Ohio State playing each other every year, how can that hurt the regular season?

Why don't we see more of those games now? Because coaches and schools are worried about losing and being left out of the BCS title game.

Sure, you could run the rest of the table and get back into it, but if there are two undefeated teams or two teams that lost as well, your chances of making the title game is lower.

You lose the same game with a playoff, your chances of making the playoff are still the same, since you haven't lost a conference game. Win your conference and you earn the right to play for the title.

Hell, even in my playoff scenario, you lose only one game and are ranked among the nations best, you would still likely get invited to the playoff.

A playoff similar to what I suggest a few posts ago would be a win win for CFB. You would get to see more top notch games, without hurting the losing teams chances of making the playoff.

OU_Sooners75

3/27/2011, 06:34 PM

What if you could keep the fun and still have it played on the field? I've long pondered what system would be best for college football, and I'm pretty set on this:

10 team format

6 BCS conference champions get auto-bid
highest ranked non-aq/independent gets auto-bid
3 wildcards given to the 3 highest ranked teams who didn't get auto-bid

You then seed everyone by ranking

You have a wildcard weekend with the 10 seed playing at the 7 seeds home field, and the 9 seed playing at the 8 seeds home field

The reason this works is because if you play in a BCS conference, win your conference and your guaranteed a spot. If you don't, don't complain. You had a chance to win it on the field. The people who make the argument for a 16 team playoff where every conference champion gets a place should go **** themselves. There is absolutely no reason on earth that the winner of the WAC should automatically get a place in a playoff. This is college football, not college basketball. They need to be put at a disadvantage for the level of competition they play anyway. But if you take the highest ranked non-aq/independent, the little guys still get a guaranteed spot every year. And on the years when there are 2 really good non-aq/independent teams (09), they should be good enough to get in with a wildcard. By taking the 3 highest ranked teams as wildcards, you guarantee that no top 10 team who doesn't win an auto bid will get in. And that's the way it should be anyway. If you want 16 because you want to give every conference an auto-bid, shut your mouth. If you want 16 because you want the 16 best teams, it waters down the importance of every regular season game. It really is just as important to preserve the importance of the regular season as it is to have a playoff. But with this system, it gives guarantees everyone who deserves to be in a spot (conference winner/best non-aq), and the regular season loses nothing. Teams would still have to play for the highest ranking possible (like now where they play for the #1 and 2 ranking) because should you not win your conference on the field, you need one of 3 wildcard spots. Believe me, no one would just assume they're going to win the conference and take a couple games off.

Not really a bad idea either...but to be fair to all of D-1A members, and since it would be an NCAA ran playoff, all conferences would be included, not just the big 6 conferences.

jersey sooner

3/27/2011, 06:59 PM

Not really a bad idea either...but to be fair to all of D-1A members, and since it would be an NCAA ran playoff, all conferences would be included, not just the big 6 conferences.

But the reality is the big conferences are a league of their own. They're the real college football, and they're the only ones that would deserve an auto-bid. Forget what the National Communists Against Athletes [/Boz] will want for a sec, would you actually be in favor of the Sun Belt champion (last year 7-6 Florida International) being guaranteed a spot in the playoff?

MR2-Sooner86

3/27/2011, 07:01 PM

It wouldn't be THAT hard to do it.

You have the lightweights slug it out.

MAC vs. MWC
Sun Belt vs. WAC

ACC vs. MAC/MWC Winner
Big East vs. Big 10

Now how do we decided above? We use the BCS ratings still. Lets say Florida State is ranked #3, West Virginia is #5 and Ohio State is #6. Since Florida State of the ACC is ranked higher, they get the MAC/MWC Winner.

Big 12 vs. Sun Belt/WAC winner
Pac 10 vs. SEC

We can apply the same here as above in terms of rankings and who plays who. Then the games would be as followed.

ACC/MAC/MWC Winner vs. Big East/Big 10 Winner

Big 12/Sun Belt/WAC Winner vs. Pac 10/SEC Winner

The next game would then be the Championship Game.

Now what about the conferences in the brackets? The ACC, Big East, Big 10, Big 12, Pac 10, and SEC will be in rotation. This way we won't get year after year of the Big 12, Pac 10, and SEC fighting for the championship.

So the next year it'd look like the following.

SEC vs. MAC/MWC Winner
ACC vs. Big East

Big 10 vs. Sun Belt/WAC winner
Big 12 vs. Pac 10

You would have to get rid of three non-conference games for the playoffs. However since teams are allowed four there would still be one left to schedule any game of choosing by the school. It could be a Division II as a easy opener or a rivalry like Nebraska/Oklahoma or whatever the school wants.

This way during regular conference play, the current system still exist to an extent. For instance in '08 it would've been the same as OU, Texas, and Texas Tech would've been fighting over BCS rankings to who gets to go to the Big 12 Championship. Instead of going to the National Championship, OU would've gotten the chance to go to the play-offs.

You could also keep some of the other bowls IF you wanted to. Then there wouldn't be any rules and if the McDonald's AT&T Bowl wanted Oklahoma State and Miami to play, they could, if the teams agreed.

Everybody wins.

Now, is it the answer? No, but it's a start.

OU_Sooners75

3/27/2011, 07:12 PM

But the reality is the big conferences are a league of their own. They're the real college football, and they're the only ones that would deserve an auto-bid. Forget what the National Communists Against Athletes [/Boz] will want for a sec, would you actually be in favor of the Sun Belt champion (last year 7-6 Florida International) being guaranteed a spot in the playoff?

Were we all in favor of Georgia making the NCAA BBall tourney a few years ago while finishing damn near last in the SEC that year by winning their conference tourney?

The fact is, if the NCAA oversees it then they will be making it a fair system across the board, not just bowing to the top 6 conferences.

The way you look at it, then the Big East should not be a part of it since their last two champs have lost like 4 games.

For it to be a fair market, then yes, the likes of the Sunbelt conference should be included....like it or not.

That would also serve to make parity even greater in cfb....though the big dogs will still get the lion share of the best recruits since they have the best facilities and coaches.

This is what is wrong with the BCS IMHO, they do not include everyone equally.

SoonerPride

3/27/2011, 07:12 PM

Leroy Lizard

3/27/2011, 07:15 PM

Why do we need a playoff in football?

1. There would be a TRUE National Champion [Well, okay]
2. It gives the lesser teams a chance to win it all [True in theory, just the opposite in practice. Within ten years the smaller schools' chances of playing for a national title would be wiped out completely]
3. It would do away with the corrupt bowl committees. [BFD]
4. It would be more exciting to watch than most bowl games [Not sure I buy that.]
5. It would do away with conference alignment in bowl games [BFD]
6. We fans would get more games to watch! [Not if the regular bowls die off (which I think they will)]

Meh.

JRAM

3/27/2011, 07:19 PM

True national champion my ***. It would be who is hot during the playoff, not the entire season. The regular season should decide the championship teams in football. A playoff system is a complete joke for college football. Keep it the way it is with the bowls and more teams will be happy along with their fanbase.

OU_Sooners75

3/27/2011, 07:20 PM

Meh.

Liztard....just to entertain you....

How would the regular bowls die off?

Sure, some would...but most of them wouldn't All bowl games are exhibition games anyway, so they wouldn't all die off.

Also, tell me exactly how the lesser teams would not be given the chance to win it all?

It may never happen, just like there has never been a 16 seed win in the basketball tourney.

However the chance is always there that they could win it, because they are being given the opportunity to prove it on the field.

MichiganSooner

3/27/2011, 07:21 PM

What is a "TRUE" champion of anything? It's just winning a tournament. Look at it this way; if the 12 seed in the Big XII tournament won that tourney would you crown them "TRUE" Big XII Champions?

I remember the Sooners running the table in a regular season of 2003 and being called the team of the century by some; we went to Big 12 Championship Game and got beat by a K-State team that managed to win the North but would have been somewhere in the middle of the South that season. And they were crowned the "TRUE" Big XII Champions.

OU_Sooners75

3/27/2011, 07:22 PM

We have a playoff now.
Two teams decide it on the field.
What you want are expanded playoffs and regardless how many teams you let in there will always be those who whine that it is not enough.
The more you expand the field the less meaningful the regular season.

Where is this playoff you are speaking of?

You talking about the BCS title game and everything else?

There is no such thing as a 2 team playoff....that is just a game or series of games.

Oh, wait, you mean that the regular season is a playoff. :rolleyes:

Same old argument just different person.

Leroy Lizard

3/27/2011, 07:23 PM

It wouldn't be THAT hard to do it.

You have the lightweights slug it out.

MAC vs. MWC
Sun Belt vs. WAC

ACC vs. MAC/MWC Winner
Big East vs. Big 10

This is inherently unfair no matter how you slice it. Why should a team from a weak conference be given an easier opponent? They already have an easier regular season, so why reward them even further?

Now, if you are treating these games as pre-playoff qualifer rounds, then you are treating schools from weaker conferences unfairly by making them pass an additional hurdle to gain entry into the playoffs. Weaker schools already have inadequate resources to compete for a national title, and you are throwing on top of them one more barrier.

usmc-sooner

3/27/2011, 07:24 PM

what is it about retards fighting on internet (and taking it waaaaaaaaay to seriously) attracts me like a moth to a flame.

OU_Sooners75

3/27/2011, 07:34 PM

what is it about retards fighting on internet (and taking it waaaaaaaaay to seriously) attracts me like a moth to a flame.

Because retards like the company with other retards? :P

Soonerite

3/27/2011, 07:35 PM

I think OU making it to the championship game 4 put of 10 years would be the biggest deterrent of a playoff system for Sooner fans. Why go through more teams to get to where we already can now?

MR2-Sooner86

3/27/2011, 07:36 PM

This is inherently unfair no matter how you slice it. Why should a team from a weak conference be given an easier opponent? They already have an easier regular season, so why reward them even further?

Yes, the smaller non-BCS conferences will face each other before going into the bracket with the BCS conferences. Easy schedule? They'll still have to face two teams from BCS conferences before getting to the National Championship Game.

Now, if you are treating these games as pre-playoff qualifer rounds, then you are treating schools from weaker conferences unfairly by making them pass an additional hurdle to gain entry into the playoffs. Weaker schools already have inadequate resources to compete for a national title, and you are throwing on top of them one more barrier.

Now is it somewhat unfair? Yes. I don't think the smaller conferences and schools are the same as the bigger ones.

For example, the Boise State University, University of Houston, or University of Tulsa are not the University of Oklahoma or Texas in many regards. So should they get the same treatment? I think not. If they don't like it, do what TCU did and move to a better conference.

Besides, it's just one more game. Until we start getting some mega-conferences going on to help suck up the smaller schools they'll be on their own unless they can help themselves.

OU_Sooners75

3/27/2011, 07:37 PM

SoonerDood

3/27/2011, 07:37 PM

Quik Sand

3/27/2011, 07:38 PM

:pop:

MR2-Sooner86

3/27/2011, 07:41 PM

I think OU making it to the championship game 4 put of 10 years would be the biggest deterrent of a playoff system for Sooner fans. Why go through more teams to get to where we already can now?

2000 - Miami/Florida State controversy
2003 - OU/LSU/USC controversy
2004 - OU/USC/Auburn controversy
2008 - no controversy except OU/Texas but that was in conference

If we went with a playoff representing the conference we would've been able to go three of those four times including '02, '06, '07, and '10.

If we could've played Miami and Florida State in 2000, would you have been for it? I would have.

SoonerPride

3/27/2011, 07:41 PM

Where is this playoff you are speaking of?

You talking about the BCS title game and everything else?

There is no such thing as a 2 team playoff....that is just a game or series of games.

Oh, wait, you mean that the regular season is a playoff. :rolleyes:

Same old argument just different person.

No I mean we have a playoff now. Two teams enter one team leaves. Decided on the field. It is a small playoff.

You want an expanded tournament.

Learn to read.

jersey sooner

3/27/2011, 07:41 PM

Soonerite

3/27/2011, 07:41 PM

Yeah, let me tell you, I would not want to attend 1-4 more games that the Sooners could play in!!!! :rolleyes:

So you would want to risk a chance at a national title just to watch OU play a few more games? That sounds like a brilliant idea. :rolleyes:

OU_Sooners75

3/27/2011, 07:52 PM

Anybody see the no-shows at the BCS games AND the basketball tournament? Universities do not make money off post-season events. They make money off of Saturdays in the fall. People come back to their alma mater and spend money on campus and in town. University presidents have no incentive to change this system.

Didn't read my suggestion of a playoff, did you?

It would have at maximum two extra home games if you are top 4 seed.

That being said, that is a HUGE incentive for Presidents and Athletic Departments to get behind it.

$75 (average cost of an OU ticket) x 82,000 seats = $6.15 million/game.

I do not know how much the school pays to host a game, but I am sure that the Presidents and Athletic Departments can agree on something that would give them a very good possibility to earn more money for their school.

OU_Sooners75

3/27/2011, 07:56 PM

So you would want to risk a chance at a national title just to watch OU play a few more games? That sounds like a brilliant idea. :rolleyes:

You are not the sharpest knife in the drawer are you?

How it is set up now, we pretty much have to win all games or our chances of playing in the BCS Title game drops dramatically. In a playoff, we can drop a game or two and still win our conference. In return we would get a chance to play for a championship if we win all playoff games.

It would also give us fans 1-4 more games where we can watch and support our Sooners in action!

Quik Sand

3/27/2011, 08:02 PM

:gary: x6

Take your immediate tornado precautions.

OU_Sooners75

3/27/2011, 08:04 PM

No I mean we have a playoff now. Two teams enter one team leaves. Decided on the field. It is a small playoff.

You want an expanded tournament.

Learn to read.

Learn what a playoff or tournament is.

Playoff: a series of contests played after the end of the regular season to determine a championship —often used in plural.

Tournament: a series of games or contests that make up a single unit of competition (as on a professional golf tour), the championship play-offs of a league or conference or invitational event.How it is set now, it is not a true playoff. It is just a championship game where the regular season dictated the two opponents.

SoonerPride

3/27/2011, 08:04 PM

You are not the sharpest knife in the drawer are you?

How it is set up now, we pretty much have to win all games or our chances of playing in the BCS Title game drops dramatically. In a playoff, we can drop a game or two and still win our conference. In return we would get a chance to play for a championship if we win all playoff games.

It would also give us fans 1-4 more games where we can watch and support our Sooners in action!

Thank you for conceding the regular season loses meaning with expanded tournaments.

OU_Sooners75

3/27/2011, 08:06 PM

2000 - Miami/Florida State controversy
2003 - OU/LSU/USC controversy
2004 - OU/USC/Auburn controversy
2008 - no controversy except OU/Texas but that was in conference

If we went with a playoff representing the conference we would've been able to go three of those four times including '02, '06, '07, and '10.

If we could've played Miami and Florida State in 2000, would you have been for it? I would have.

I am assuming he wouldn't be for it because he just wants OU to be placed there from the regular season.

OU_Sooners75

3/27/2011, 08:07 PM

MR2, do not forget Washington in 2000.

They did beat Miami and finished with just one loss like FSU and Miami did.

Quik Sand

3/27/2011, 08:13 PM

Yup Warshington had a solid argument as Miami did

OU_Sooners75

3/27/2011, 08:17 PM

Thank you for conceding the regular season loses meaning with expanded tournaments.

LMFAO...Stupidity is everywhere.

If you were able to comprehend every post you read, it would be a great thing.

The regular season would still have meaning, however, a lone loss or two will not hurt your chance getting into the national championship playoff. You would still have to win your conference. So the conference race would mean more to a team than a non-conference game.

Now if they did away with non-conference games, then yes a loss would hurt your chances.

In the BCS era, only 6 times has two teams been undefeated heading into the BCS title game. That is 6 out of 13 seasons. Only three times has there been more than 2 undefeated teams heading into the BCS title game.

MR2-Sooner86

3/27/2011, 08:18 PM

Lets us think back to controversies.

2000 - Florida State/Miami/Washington controversy
2001 - Nebraska controversy
2002 - no controversy
2003 - OU/USC/LSU controversy
2004 - OU/Auburn controversy
2005 - no controversy
2006 - Michigan/Florida controversy and Boise State question raised
2007 - two loss LSU goes to championship
2008 - undefeated Utah State controversy
2009 - no controversy
2010 - no controversy

Lets not forget there are now starting to be three to four undefeated teams at the end of the year. To say "we settle the championship" is idiotic.

I'm just going to call it what it is, p*ssies don't want to play.

If you go undefeated and, with a little luck, the pieces fall into place you play for the National Championship as it is right now.

"You mean, instead of non-conference games against easy teams we have to play highly ranked teams in a playoff!? B-b-but that's much harder!"

If you want to be the best, you have to play and beat the best. Playing it easy and getting ready for a couple of hard games a year is what Boise State does and we are NOT Boise State we are ****ING SOONERS!

Some of you people should be ashamed of yourselves. If you want an easy sport with little competition may I suggest soccer? I don't think football is for you.

SoonerPride

3/27/2011, 08:21 PM

LMFAO...Stupidity is everywhere.

If you were able to comprehend every post you read, it would be a great thing.

The regular season would still have meaning, however, a lone loss or two will not hurt your chance getting into the national championship playoff. You would still have to win your conference. So the conference race would mean more to a team than a non-conference game.

Now if they did away with non-conference games, then yes a loss would hurt your chances.

In the BCS era, only 6 times has two teams been undefeated heading into the BCS title game. That is 6 out of 13 seasons. Only three times has there been more than 2 undefeated teams heading into the BCS title game.

"Still have meaning" = i concede that it would have less meaning than now.

OU_Sooners75

3/27/2011, 08:23 PM

"Still have meaning" = i concede that it would have less meaning than now.

LMFAO....it means that the regular season would still have meaning.

Stop adding words to my posts...or stop trying to imply something that is not there.

But nice try.

OU_Sooners75

3/27/2011, 08:25 PM

MR2, Utah State was not undefeated in 2008. That would have been Utah.

And yes, in 2010, there was some minor controversy. TCU

Dan Thompson

3/27/2011, 08:33 PM

Why not use the D I-AA format for a starter?

I have no idea what it is, but it seems to work and the players somehow do not miss that much classroom time:)

MR2-Sooner86

3/27/2011, 08:34 PM

Why not use the D I-AA format for a starter?

I have no idea what it is, but it seems to work and the players somehow do not miss that much classroom time:)

That makes too much sense to work so we won't do that.

goingoneight

3/27/2011, 08:57 PM

Why NOT to have a playoff in football?

1. Kill the excitement of the regular season.

People REALLY believe this? :confused:

OU_Sooners75

3/27/2011, 09:17 PM

People REALLY believe this? :confused:

Yeah, apparently they do!:eek:

Leroy Lizard

3/27/2011, 09:26 PM

Some of you people should be ashamed of yourselves. If you want an easy sport with little competition may I suggest soccer? I don't think football is for you.

Why do people watch college football now?

There must be more to the sport than settling the title on the field. Must be.

And if you think about it enough, you will understand what that "it" is.

Leroy Lizard

3/27/2011, 09:31 PM

Why not use the D I-AA format for a starter?

I have no idea what it is, but it seems to work and the players somehow do not miss that much classroom time:)

Sure, we could. But if we tried it, every coach, college president, and athletic director in the country would complain. Fans would bitch too.

But don't let that stop you. Just go on and offer simpleton proposals. WTF, why not? This playoff argument is really quite simple: Just do as some other division of football does, never minding the huge differences between the two levels. That is always the ticket to success.

jersey sooner

3/27/2011, 09:36 PM

This playoff argument is really quite simple: Just do as some other division of football does, never minding the huge differences between the two levels. That is always the ticket to success.

Lizzy's actually right (gag I just threw up out of my butt). The D1 playoff should not be base off what D1aa does

jumperstop

3/27/2011, 10:33 PM

People REALLY believe this? :confused:

Yes, and it's true. You can't tell me if there was a playoff for this previous season, after we lost to Mizzou this year people would have been like "Oh well, we are still in the MNC hunt..." instead of "The MNC race for us is done for this year..." People would have been a lot less upset about that Missouri loss than they were. So yes, making the regular season "less important".

jersey sooner

3/27/2011, 10:37 PM

Yes, and it's true. You can't tell me if there was a playoff for this previous season, after we lost to Mizzou this year people would have been like "Oh well, we are still in the MNC hunt..." instead of "The MNC race for us is done for this year..." People would have been a lot less upset about that Missouri loss than they were. So yes, making the regular season "less important".

He was replying to the notion of it being less "exciting." But aren't you also the guy who said people will still complain :rolleyes:

jumperstop

3/27/2011, 10:40 PM

He was replying to the notion of it being less "exciting." But aren't you also the guy who said people will still complain :rolleyes:

There are 68 teams in the BB Tourney and people still complain...

And less exciting...less important, same ****ing idea. You can't tell me being 10 down in the fourth people would be thinking "Ok well we can still afford a loss since we are ranked number 1..." and not "Ohh I hope we can pull this out." Whether or not that's what you would be thinking that is for sure what the average fan would have going through their head.

jersey sooner

3/27/2011, 10:41 PM

We're talking about football though

Leroy Lizard

3/27/2011, 10:41 PM

Lizzy's actually right (gag I just threw up out of my butt).

They have a term for that.

jersey sooner

3/27/2011, 10:42 PM

They have a term for that.

Yeah it's called a bad case of the lizzy

jumperstop

3/27/2011, 10:46 PM

We're talking about football though

Really? I thought we were talking about cricket....:confused: :rolleyes:

jersey sooner

3/27/2011, 11:00 PM

There are 68 teams in the BB Tourney and people still complain...

And less exciting...less important, same ****ing idea. You can't tell me being 10 down in the fourth people would be thinking "Ok well we can still afford a loss since we are ranked number 1..." and not "Ohh I hope we can pull this out." Whether or not that's what you would be thinking that is for sure what the average fan would have going through their head.

I would be thinking both, and I hope everyone else would too. And exciting and important aren't the same. Here's the problem with no playoff. As much as you guys want to say it's already played on the field, it's not. A regular season game is not a playoff game. We had no idea how important that loss would turn out to be when it happened. Playoff football and regular season football are 2 completely different animals. The best type of football is when the teams know it's a life or death scenario. Do you really prefer that an entire season can be ruined with a slip up in week 3? And your point about people complaining is stupid. Would you rather a 13-0 TCU have to complain, or a 10-2 Arkansas? And let's stop making any kind of comparison between basketball and football. They are 2 different sports, and have nothing to do with each other. Did you read my proposal, and what did you think if you did?

SoonerinLondon

3/27/2011, 11:04 PM

LMFAO what a lame *** excuse.

I guess you failed at seeing where you would have to actually win your conference to be eligible to play in the playoff. (if we ever had one).

Meaning, you would not see a bunch of teams sitting their players, especially when there is a tight race in most of the conferences. Sure their may be a few conferences where one team has it wrapped up with 2 games or more left...but lets get real here...

If there is a homefield aspect of a playoff, then they would still be playing for homefield for a playoff game or two.

If they purposely lose, then their stock for homefield would drop.

Glad you are enjoying the post. I don't expect to convince you. Every person has an opion on this. Mine happens to be consistent with Bob Stoops' opinion on this subject. (Not that that matters much, as he's had opinions on many things...like when to go for 2 points...that I've felt differently about, but that is subject for a different post.)

jumperstop

3/27/2011, 11:12 PM

I would be thinking both, and I hope everyone else would too. And exciting and important aren't the same. Here's the problem with no playoff. As much as you guys want to say it's already played on the field, it's not. A regular season game is not a playoff game. We had no idea how important that loss would turn out to be when it happened. Playoff football and regular season football are 2 completely different animals. The best type of football is when the teams know it's a life or death scenario. Do you really prefer that an entire season can be ruined with a slip up in week 3? And your point about people complaining is stupid. Would you rather a 13-0 TCU have to complain, or a 10-2 Arkansas? And let's stop making any kind of comparison between basketball and football. They are 2 different sports, and have nothing to do with each other. Did you read my proposal, and what did you think if you did?

The thing I don't like about your idea or a lot of others is the auto bid for conference champs. If we were to have 10 teams like you suggest I think it should be top 10 BCS teams, cause then teams like UCONN make it in over more deserving teams. Personally I think 10 is too many, maybe take top 4,6, or 8 in the BCS and make that the playoff. If you can't make it into the top ten, you probably don't deserve a shot at the MNC for that season IMO. Why should a team that's number 2 in their conference, say OSU to OU or Fla to Bama be left out to a ****ty WAC winner or Big Least winner? That's the major issue I have with most playoff arguments.

jersey sooner

3/27/2011, 11:16 PM

Let me shoot down the notion that teams would sit players. All you need to know is that with the #2 seed locked up, and nothing bearing on the outcome of the game, the Bears still played their starters in the season finale in an attempt to beat the Packers. An NFL rivalry is nothing like the college football rivalries. Bear fans wouldn't have said peep if Lovie rested them for the playoffs. And how many of the biggest college rivalries are the last game of the season? Do you think Stoops would ever give okie st a free win at Wilkinson Field?

jersey sooner

3/27/2011, 11:35 PM

The thing I don't like about your idea or a lot of others is the auto bid for conference champs. If we were to have 10 teams like you suggest I think it should be top 10 BCS teams, cause then teams like UCONN make it in over more deserving teams. Personally I think 10 is too many, maybe take top 4,6, or 8 in the BCS and make that the playoff. If you can't make it into the top ten, you probably don't deserve a shot at the MNC for that season IMO. Why should a team that's number 2 in their conference, say OSU to OU or Fla to Bama be left out to a ****ty WAC winner or Big Least winner? That's the major issue I have with most playoff arguments.

I completely agree with you, and that's exactly why I love my proposal (it's not really mine). What a playoff would need is a balance of fairness and common sense. The reason you have to give the BCS conference winners an auto bid is because you have allow teams to earn it with victories (fairness). The reason you only give the highest ranked non-aq/independent an auto bid is because the little guy is guaranteed to be represented (fairness), and you equate all the mid-major conferences to one BCS conference (common sense). There is absolutely no argument to be made that more than one ****ty team should be guaranteed a spot (yes the big east sucks but that's another conversation). Which leads right into the reason you give 3 wildcards to the highest ranked teams that didn't win an auto-bid. You keep the best possible teams in the playoff (common sense), while keeping it fair. If you didn't get a wildcard, don't complain because you should have won your conference (fairness). But in reality, how many times does a top ten team really not win their conference? And when it does happen, the wildcard ensures the '03 Oklahomas and '08 Texas' still get a chance to play for it all (common sense). In '09, Boise and TCU both would have got in because they were legitimate top ten teams (common sense). This is the best balance between the fairness of letting teams earn it on the field and the common sense of having the best teams play for the National Championship. Not to mention, the regular season loses absolutely nothing.

jumperstop

3/27/2011, 11:46 PM

I completely agree with you, and that's exactly why I love my proposal (it's not really mine). What a playoff would need is a balance of fairness and common sense. The reason you have to give the BCS conference winners an auto bid is because you have to allow a team to earn it by winning (fairness). The reason you only give the highest ranked non-aq/independent an auto bid is because the little guy is guaranteed to be represented (fairness), and you equate all the mid-major conferences to one BCS conference (common sense). There is absolutely no argument to be made that more than one ****ty team should be guaranteed a spot (yes the big east sucks but that's another conversation). Which leads right into the reason you give 3 wildcards to the highest ranked teams that didn't win an auto-bid. You keep the best possible teams in the playoff (common sense), while keeping it fair. If you didn't get a wildcard, don't complain because you should have won your conference (fairness). But in reality, how many times does a top ten team not win the conference. When it does happen, the wildcard ensures the '03 Oklahomas and '08 Texas' of the world will still have a chance to play for it all (common sense). In '09, Boise and TCU would have got in because they were legitimate top ten teams (common sense). This is the best balance between the fairness of letting teams earn it on the field and the common sense of putting the best teams in. Not to mention, the regular season loses absolutely nothing.

If the "little guy" isn't in the top ten they don't deserve a spot. BSU and TCU would make it in most years because they are the in the top ten without the fact they won their conference. Why write in the rules that they should be promised a spot if they win their conference? If the WAC, Mountain West, or even Big East having a down year and the Champion is 8-4, they don't deserve a spot. 4 losses in that conference can be compared to 1-2 in a more difficult one. The top three or four conference will always probably have their champ in the top 10, but ACC and Big East aren't always even deserving of their BCS bid and how many times in the recent past have they not been in the top ten after CCG. Just seems more fair to me to not give auto bids. It's not like the "little guys" aren't getting the respect. They've been making it into the top ten by the end of the regular season, why do they need the auto bid for a chance?

zandozan

3/28/2011, 12:05 AM

Why NOT to have a playoff in football?

1. Kill the excitement of the regular season.

Why would it do that? It actually sets up a lot more excitement especially the latter half of the season when teams are trying to get into the playoffs. If a person's team has 1 or 2 losses under the current system, their interest in the rest of the regular season wanes considerably because they have no chance to win a national championship. Under a playoff system they still have a shot thus creating more interest and excitement. Your argument is invalid unless you can provide logical reasons to substantiate it.

jersey sooner

3/28/2011, 12:09 AM

jersey sooner

3/28/2011, 12:15 AM

Why would it do that? It actually sets up a lot more excitement especially the latter half of the season when teams are trying to get into the playoffs. If a person's team has 1 or 2 losses under the current system, their interest in the rest of the regular season wanes considerably because they have no chance to win a national championship. Under a playoff system they still have a shot thus creating more interest and excitement. Your argument is invalid unless you can provide logical reasons to substantiate it.

Unless the horrific mistake of making the playoff too big was made (like 16), it really would add even more to the regular season.

jumperstop

3/28/2011, 12:20 AM

Look, even in an ideal world where we don't have to take into account the money/academics/bowl factors, there is still no perfect playoff system. And the weakness of the Big East and ACC conversation is for another time because as of now they are still considered BCS conferences. I don't think you understood the part you highlighted. I said the highest ranked team from all the non-aq conferences and independents. It wouldn't matter if they won their conference or not. The reason you do this is because it's both fair and makes the most sense. You do have to be fair and give the little guy an equal opportunity. Otherwise all we would hear is it isn't a level playing field. But common sense should tell you that the WAC, MAC, Sun Belt, Conf USA, MW, and independents (Notre Dame can go **** itself if it doesn't like it) should equal one BCS conference. So you give the highest ranked (common sense to put the best team in) team out of all those conferences a place at the table every year so they have the same shot to win it as the big boys (fairness). And anyone who thinks all non-aq/independents should equal more than a BCS conference (I'm predicting lizzy) should go ahead and punch yourself in the face really hard.

All I was saying is the deserving little guys manage their way into the top ten in recent years. Look what trouble the automatic CCG BCS game bids have resulted in, people upset that those teams (Big East and ACC teams) get in over little guy teams that are more deserving like BSU, Utah, TCU. I just don't think we should make any conference have a auto bid, that would be the most equal playing field. These teams could probably recruit better if they could tell the recruits you aren't going to be limited by what conference you are in. As long as you win all or most of your games, make into the top ten, you're in.

Leroy Lizard

3/28/2011, 12:21 AM

If the WAC, Mountain West, or even Big East having a down year and the Champion is 8-4, they don't deserve a spot. 4 losses in that conference can be compared to 1-2 in a more difficult one.

It could even be far worse. They may also have lost most of their nonconference games, including blowouts to powerhouses. Yet they get to play for the national title while a 10-2 Arkansas team stays home.

To fix that problem, you end up becoming unfair in the other direction. No matter what, someone is going to get screwed.

Leroy Lizard

3/28/2011, 12:25 AM

Unless the horrific mistake of making the playoff too big was made (like 16)...

It is inevitable. Common sense and history dictate that. You are not going to create a tidy playoff system and not have it grow out of control.

So it is pointless to argue on the merits of an eight-team or smaller playoff. No such thing, at least not in the long term.

Still in favor?

jersey sooner

3/28/2011, 12:25 AM

No matter what, someone is going to get screwed.

Exactly. I'm so glad you said this lizzy. There is no perfect solution. But that doesn't mean there isn't a better one. You absolutely can make an argument that the non-aq/independents shouldn't get an auto-bid. But you can avoid all the hell that would be raised about not enough parity and equality in college football by giving them a spot every year, and I really wouldn't have a problem with that. And the 10-2 Arkansas can shut it's mouth, because it had an easier chance to guarantee itself a playoff spot.

jumperstop

3/28/2011, 12:26 AM

It could even be far worse. They may also have lost most of their nonconference games, including blowouts to powerhouses. Yet they get to play for the national title while a 10-2 Arkansas team stays home.

To fix that problem, you end up becoming unfair in the other direction. No matter what, someone is going to get screwed.

This is why I don't care about having a playoff...someone is always getting left out. And plus the current system seems to have done very well to OU, **** everyone else. :D

Leroy Lizard

3/28/2011, 01:02 AM

Exactly. I'm so glad you said this lizzy. There is no perfect solution. But that doesn't mean there isn't a better one. You absolutely can make an argument that the non-aq/independents shouldn't get an auto-bid. But you can avoid all the hell that would be raised about not enough parity and equality in college football by giving them a spot every year, and I really wouldn't have a problem with that. And the 10-2 Arkansas can shut it's mouth, because it had an easier chance to guarantee itself a playoff spot.

But Arkansas isn't going to shut its mouth and it shouldn't. If it played a tougher schedule and ended up with a better season than some mid-conference weakling, the fans should be pissed if their team is passed over. How is that preferable?

All a playoff system will do is take unfairness and institutionalize it.

texaspokieokie

3/28/2011, 07:12 AM

This is why I don't care about having a playoff...someone is always getting left out. And plus the current system seems to have done very well to OU, **** everyone else. :D

OU has (most) always been treated well, why do OU fans want a change ??

Soonerite

3/28/2011, 08:59 AM

OU has (most) always been treated well, why do OU fans want a change ??

This is what I thought, but I basically got called an idiot, so what do I know. :D It just seems like an argument for the smaller schools that can't get to a championship game without a playoff.

JLEW1818

3/28/2011, 09:03 AM

I'm fine with what it is now.

If there is a change. Start small.... like maybe a 8 team playoff.

jumperstop

3/28/2011, 09:13 AM

I'm fine with what it is now.

If there is a change. Start small.... like maybe a 8 team playoff.

I'm fine with this way too. OU seems to do fine, I honestly don't care if BSU or TCU gets their "fair" shot. And starting small IMO, does not mean eight teams. I hope that would be the max for a playoff. Otherwise you don't even have to do that well to get a spot.

rekamrettuB

3/28/2011, 09:13 AM

I remember the Sooners running the table in a regular season of 2003 and being called the team of the century by some; we went to Big 12 Championship Game and got beat by a K-State team that managed to win the North but would have been somewhere in the middle of the South that season. And they were crowned the "TRUE" Big XII Champions.

My point exactly.

And what 75 missed in my analogy was the "TRUE" champions are those that get hot during a tournament. If, and it's a big IF, VCU wins this year's March Madness tourney as an 11 seed and 4th place finisher in the Horizon league conference, it shows you what a joke it is and can become.

MeMyself&Me

3/28/2011, 10:21 AM

My point exactly.

And what 75 missed in my analogy was the "TRUE" champions are those that get hot during a tournament. If, and it's a big IF, VCU wins this year's March Madness tourney as an 11 seed and 4th place finisher in the Horizon league conference, it shows you what a joke it is and can become.

I also think it's important to point out that that 11 seed is on a 16 seed scale. If you numbered the seeds on the full scale of the tournament it's more like a 41-44 placed team. So a team that is no better than 40th could still be a "TRUE" champion of all of college basketball simply because they got hot in the post season.

The reality is, the only thing they will be a "TRUE" champion of is the post season tournament. It seems way too many people are willing to sell the soul of college football away so that we can have a "TRUE" champion of a post season (which, I'll admit would be fun to watch). OH! And don't you DARE speak out against playoffs or you'll get steamrolled with the name calling!

texaspokieokie

3/28/2011, 10:36 AM

I also think it's important to point out that that 11 seed is on a 16 seed scale. If you numbered the seeds on the full scale of the tournament it's more like a 41-44 placed team. So a team that is no better than 40th could still be a "TRUE" champion of all of college basketball simply because they got hot in the post season.

The reality is, the only thing they will be a "TRUE" champion of is the post season tournament. It seems way too many people are willing to sell the soul of college football away so that we can have a "TRUE" champion of a post season (which, I'll admit would be fun to watch). OH! And don't you DARE speak out against playoffs or you'll get steamrolled with the name calling!

Good post !!

ouengineer97

3/28/2011, 10:52 AM

6 college basketball reasons why there should be playoffs in college football...#1 Ohio State, #1 Pittsburgh, #1 Duke, #1 Kansas, #8 Butler, #11 VCU

These are the 6 reasons why there should not be a playoff. If any of these teams played a series of 5 or 7 games like the NBA, I think the results would be dramatically different.

Just because they had a good game at the right time does not make them the best overall team.

In a parallel argument, a team like Boise St. who literally has to play 1-2 tough games a year, while other teams in major conference play much fiecer comptetion lose key players to injurie as opposed to resting players in the 2nd half, has a chance to win 1-2 games at the end, while not proving themselves along the way.

OU_Sooners75

3/28/2011, 11:44 AM

Unless the horrific mistake of making the playoff too big was made (like 16), it really would add even more to the regular season.

16, IMHO, is a damn good number to have.

I know most people do not believe in giving the little guy a shot, but we should.

That said, all conference champs attend the playoff and then the top 5 teams after those are in as well.

Honestly, how many times has the #12 or #13 team in the nation tried to argue that they deserved a shot at the national championship?

Why those two numbers? It it takes away sunbelt, MAC, and c-usa conferences. So essentially the top 12 or 13 teams would still be in the tourament. Sure we could have a UCONN once in awhile, but people need to stop acting like UCONN was the first 4 or 5 loss team in the BCS. Florida State a few years ago was a 5 loss team and went to the BCS as well. So just 2 times in 13 years has there been a 4 or 5 loss team in the BCS.

OU_Sooners75

3/28/2011, 11:47 AM

These are the 6 reasons why there should not be a playoff. If any of these teams played a series of 5 or 7 games like the NBA, I think the results would be dramatically different.

Just because they had a good game at the right time does not make them the best overall team.

In a parallel argument, a team like Boise St. who literally has to play 1-2 tough games a year, while other teams in major conference play much fiecer comptetion lose key players to injurie as opposed to resting players in the 2nd half, has a chance to win 1-2 games at the end, while not proving themselves along the way.

Not to really jump to the defense of Boise State....but those players are not the ones that made that schedule.

Also, isnt Boise State going to a new conference? The Mountain West?

If so, they gain a little more fiercer competition right there. :rolleyes:

jumperstop

3/28/2011, 11:53 AM

16, IMHO, is a damn good number to have.

I know most people do not believe in giving the little guy a shot, but we should.

That said, all conference champs attend the playoff and then the top 5 teams after those are in as well.

Honestly, how many times has the #12 or #13 team in the nation tried to argue that they deserved a shot at the national championship?

Why those two numbers? It it takes away sunbelt, MAC, and c-usa conferences. So essentially the top 12 or 13 teams would still be in the tourament. Sure we could have a UCONN once in awhile, but people need to stop acting like UCONN was the first 4 or 5 loss team in the BCS. Florida Staet a few years ago was a 5 loss team and went to the BCS as well. So just 2 times in 13 years has there been a 4 or 5 loss team in the BCS.

Exactly, why do we need 16 teams then? Nobody that low has complained because they know they have no right too. The non-aq conference teams have been getting enough respect the past few years to where they wouldn't need an auto bid to get into a playoff of the top 8 in the BCS.

JLEW1818

3/28/2011, 11:56 AM

well... only one thing to say right now...

5-7

OU_Sooners75

3/28/2011, 11:58 AM

Exactly, why do we need 16 teams then? Nobody that low has complained because they know they have no right too. The non-aq conference teams have been getting enough respect the past few years to where they wouldn't need an auto bid to get into a playoff of the top 8 in the BCS.

Apparently you don't follow along.

16 would give all conference champions a shot at playing for it on the field in the playoff. It would also ensure that top 5 teams that are not conference champions get a shot at it as well.

I am not so naive to think that Florida International or Arkansas State or even Troy is going to win the playoff championship, but at least we can say that CFB is finally being a fair sport and giving every member of D-1A ample opportunity to settle on the field.

As it sits now, the BCS big 6 conference pretty much monopolize college football. They dictate what and what does not happen and say **** you little man!

They need to make it fair for all D-1A schools....because then, not really one fan can bitch and whine...sure they will, but then we could say, you should have won your conference!

OU_Sooners75

3/28/2011, 12:01 PM

jumperstop

3/28/2011, 12:11 PM

Apparently you don't follow.....I don't give a **** about whether or not the smaller schools are getting love from the media. If they aren't good enough to be in the top 8, they don't deserve a MNC.

Fraggle145

3/28/2011, 12:12 PM

Apparently you don't follow along.

16 would give all conference champions a shot at playing for it on the field in the playoff. It would also ensure that top 5 teams that are not conference champions get a shot at it as well.

I am not so naive to think that Florida International or Arkansas State or even Troy is going to win the playoff championship, but at least we can say that CFB is finally being a fair sport and giving every member of D-1A ample opportunity to settle on the field.

As it sits now, the BCS big 6 conference pretty much monopolize college football. They dictate what and what does not happen and say **** you little man!

They need to make it fair for all D-1A schools....because then, not really one fan can bitch and whine...sure they will, but then we could say, you should have won your conference!

Ample opportunity to prove it on the field would be to have the #1 and #2 ranked teams play three times each, or maybe do this with a four team bracket.

Thats how you find out the best team and the "true" champion. When have there been more than four teams that have really passed the eyeball test?

The NBA and MLB have the best playoff style. For any measurement you need at least 3 replicates so that you can have the average estimate and the amount of error in that estimate. Since that isnt really possible for football, I prefer what we have now vs some bull**** where east popcorn state has to get a shot every year.

****. That.

Fraggle145

3/28/2011, 12:21 PM

Also, honestly...how long do you honestly think the mid-major love will continue?

With Boise State losing a BCS game, people are going to stop talking about them now....their two game BCS win streak was nice and all, but they are old news....just wait an watch when the season comes around!

You honestly think ESPN is going to stop sucking the Boise ****? They have created a perceived underdog that always wins... They cant lose with that scenario.

MeMyself&Me

3/28/2011, 02:06 PM

Not to really jump to the defense of Boise State....but those players are not the ones that made that schedule.

They knew when they signed with BSU that BSU was in a crappy conference and what their typical out of conference schedule would be too so I don't see it as unfair to them.

Leroy Lizard

3/28/2011, 02:10 PM

Yep, a playoff will really settle the arguments.

JRAM

3/28/2011, 02:31 PM

MR2-Sooner86

3/28/2011, 03:18 PM

The regular season means something

2001 Nebraska says, "Hi."

Leroy Lizard

3/28/2011, 04:40 PM

2001 Nebraska says, "Hi."

It meant something then... well, if you think college football means more than settling the "Who's #1?" debate.

Caboose

3/28/2011, 04:48 PM

Well this thread certainly convinced me. Let me know when someone starts a serious thread with a workable playoff idea.

Leroy Lizard

3/28/2011, 04:56 PM

Well this thread certainly convinced me. Let me know when someone starts a serious thread with a workable playoff idea.

Ha! Ha! Ha! Very funny!

jersey sooner

3/28/2011, 04:56 PM

But Arkansas isn't going to shut its mouth and it shouldn't. If it played a tougher schedule and ended up with a better season than some mid-conference weakling, the fans should be pissed if their team is passed over. How is that preferable?

All a playoff system will do is take unfairness and institutionalize it.

The chinaman is not the issue here, lizzy. Either you completely miss the point, or you're going to use anything you can to sell your point of view. Let's put to bed the "it still wouldn't be fair" argument right now. Name me one playoff system that is completely fair. The 69th best college basketball team feels left out. That Giants team about a decade ago that won 90 games but was left out of the playoffs had a reason to complain. I'm sure a bunch of teams were upset the Packers got in last year instead of them. But guess what? They still play it on the field, in a playoff format. Unless you stick every single team into the playoff, someone will always have a legitimate reason to feel left out. I can't believe I have to spell this out, but this is obviously impossible with college football. Using what I've proposed, is there still going to be teams that feel they should have gotten in? Absolutely. But you know what? That's ok, because that 10-2 Arkansas could have won their way in on the field. What more can they really ask for? It's ok a 10-2 Arkansas ranked #9 will think they deserved to get in. What's not ok is telling an undefeated Auburn and TCU (twice) that they have zero chance to win the national championship. It's as simple as that. Don't make the argument that something more fair isn't better than something less fair.

Leroy Lizard

3/28/2011, 05:13 PM

Quik Sand

3/28/2011, 05:17 PM

The chinaman is not the issue here, lizzy.http://jacobwilliamson.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/big-lebowski.jpg

jersey sooner

3/28/2011, 05:30 PM

None. Which is why I oppose them.

Oh. My. God. Lizzy is at minimum 148 years old. No wonder he's got nothing to do. You need to join the 21st century. Without playoffs, we wouldn't have seen Santonio Holmes make the greatest catch of all time, LBJ score the last 30 points for the Cavs, or the Red Sox come from 0-3. Playoffs = Sport

Okay, should Arkansas join a weakling conference where they can whip competition of powder puffs? Does that mean they earned their way to the playoffs more than if they played tough competition week in and week out?

No, because Oklahoma State and Arizona State and South Florida and Syracuse and Indiana and Connecticut and Texas AM would do the same thing. And they would still be playing for one spot, along with 80 other teams. And their strength of schedule would hurt their rankings. And they would all lose a metric ton of money, rightfully so.

Sorry, but I consider crap any system where a team can gain an advantage by playing in a super weak conference. Rewarding teams for playing zero competition is bush league.

So the NFL letting the Seahawks into the playoffs is bush league? But the Seahawks (Boise) beat the defending Super Bowl champion Saints.

Well done Quik

jersey sooner

3/28/2011, 05:54 PM

Quick sidenote: I know it sounds ****in nuts, but does anyone else think a (small) playoff might have actually been even better to OU than the bcs?

texaspokieokie

3/28/2011, 05:57 PM

Quick sidenote: I know it sounds ****in nuts, but does anyone else think a (small) playoff might have actually been even better to OU than the bcs?

you are RIGHT. it does sound ****in nuts.

see, we agreed.

jersey sooner

3/28/2011, 05:59 PM

http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/626a383874.jpg

Leroy Lizard

3/28/2011, 06:19 PM

Oh. My. God. Lizzy is at minimum 148 years old. No wonder he's got nothing to do. You need to join the 21st century. Without playoffs, we wouldn't have seen Santonio Holmes...

That's your argument? That if you don't want a playoff you're not cool?

I am in the 21st century and college football doesn't have a playoff. What fantasy land are you posting from?

So the NFL letting the Seahawks into the playoffs is bush league? But the Seahawks (Boise) beat the defending Super Bowl champion Saints.

If the NFC West was on orders of magnitude weaker than every other division in the NFL year after year, yes. Even NFL fans wouldn't stand for Seattle making it into the playoffs every year simply because they play zero competition week after week. There would be loud calls for realignment.

You can't simply realign in college football.

There will be years in which the Big XII is weaker than other years. I can live with that to some extent. But the MAC is going to be weak every year, so to think this is like the NFL is crazy talk.

The problem you have is that you can't think beyond the first thing that pops in your head. If you had thought about it, you would have realized that Toledo playing in the MAC is nothing like Seattle playing in the NFC West. NFL teams are far more evenly matched than college football teams, and division strengths come and go. You can pretend otherwise, but no one else is going to buy it.

The hard reality is that college football has tremendous inequities that a playoff is only going to exacerbate.

EDIT: Just as a note, here are the results of conference champion Miami (OH)'s losses:

34-12
51-13
34-13
45-3

Blown out in every game.

Fraggle145

3/28/2011, 06:27 PM

The chinaman is not the issue here, lizzy. Either you completely miss the point, or you're going to use anything you can to sell your point of view. Let's put to bed the "it still wouldn't be fair" argument right now. Name me one playoff system that is completely fair. The 69th best college basketball team feels left out. That Giants team about a decade ago that won 90 games but was left out of the playoffs had a reason to complain. I'm sure a bunch of teams were upset the Packers got in last year instead of them. But guess what? They still play it on the field, in a playoff format. Unless you stick every single team into the playoff, someone will always have a legitimate reason to feel left out. I can't believe I have to spell this out, but this is obviously impossible with college football. Using what I've proposed, is there still going to be teams that feel they should have gotten in? Absolutely. But you know what? That's ok, because that 10-2 Arkansas could have won their way in on the field. What more can they really ask for? It's ok a 10-2 Arkansas ranked #9 will think they deserved to get in. What's not ok is telling an undefeated Auburn and TCU (twice) that they have zero chance to win the national championship. It's as simple as that. Don't make the argument that something more fair isn't better than something less fair.

Who did TCU play?

That's what I thought. **** em.

jersey sooner

3/28/2011, 06:28 PM

That's your argument? That if you don't want a playoff you're not cool?

I am in the 21st century and college football doesn't have a playoff. What fantasy land are you posting from?

Nice try. I don't remember using the word cool. The same fantasy land where there is a cry for a playoff. Because it's the 21st century.

You can't simply realign in college football.

There will be years in which the Big XII is weaker than other years. I can live with that to some extent. But the MAC is going to be weak every year, so to think this is like the NFL is crazy talk.

Exactly. That's why the real conferences get an auto-bid. College football is cyclical, and that's why you treat each real conference equally. There's no telling when the Miami-FSU game will again be the biggest of the year

The problem you have is that you can't think beyond the first thing that pops in your head.

Relax homeboy. The only thing in this discussion that should ever be used as comparison is the other football.

NFL teams are far more evenly matched than college football teams, and division strengths come and go. You can pretend otherwise, but no one else is going to buy it.

I'm going to hold on to this for a minute...

The hard reality is that college football has tremendous inequities that a playoff is only going to exacerbate.

I think we're actually in agreement. Please be more specific about that statement.

jersey sooner

3/28/2011, 06:30 PM

EDIT: Just as a note, here are the results of conference champion Miami (OH)'s losses:

34-12
51-13
34-13
45-3

Blown out in every game.

Who did TCU play?

That's what I thought. **** em.

If you want to blame someone for why the little guy needs be on an equal playing field, look in the mirror. Boise is the reason they deserve a seat, until proven otherwise. But that's also why I said you give all those conferences the same amount of (guaranteed) seats as the SEC. And that's also why I said you only take the highest ranked.

Leroy Lizard

3/28/2011, 06:31 PM

Who did TCU play?

That's what I thought. **** em.

You're not paying attention to the lesson, Fraggle. We have learned that the mark of a true champion is to play weak competition. Those who play tough teams week in and week out deserve nothing but scorn if they lose. It is better to not try, then to try and fail.

Leroy Lizard

3/28/2011, 06:32 PM

If you want to blame someone for the why the little guy needs a shot, look in the mirror. Boise is the reason they deserve a seat, until proven otherwise. But that's why I said you give all those conferences the same amount of (guaranteed) seats as the SEC. And that's also why I said you take the highest ranked.

No matter how you slice it, you're rewarding teams for playing cupcakes.

jersey sooner

3/28/2011, 06:34 PM

No, I'm rewarding a team for being a part of college football. Is there anyone here that doesn't actually think TCU would have beat both Auburn and Oregon. At the same time.

jersey sooner

3/28/2011, 06:35 PM

But I'm also punishing them for not being a big boy. The entire group is equal to one conference.

Leroy Lizard

3/28/2011, 06:38 PM

But I'm also punishing them for not being a big boy. The entire group is equal to one conference.

Wait until the fights break out over which conferences constitute big boys and little boys. "I thought we were going to get rid of this caste system once we got a playoff."

Any president of a non-power who wants a playoff system should have his head examined.

jersey sooner

3/28/2011, 06:40 PM

If nothing changes, we'll know when the Big East is stripped of the BCS tag.

Curly Bill

3/28/2011, 08:55 PM

Check out the rating of this thread to see what I think of it, and the whole football playoff idea.

Give it a ****ing rest peeps. Playoffs aren't a magic bullet, they won't make the world a better place, and I don't give a flying rats *** that every other sport has it.

College football is great. Why f*ck it up!!!

jersey sooner

3/28/2011, 09:17 PM

I want you to answer this with 100% honesty. If someone told you they were about to make college football better, would you object?

Curly Bill

3/28/2011, 09:21 PM

I want you to answer this with 100% honesty. If someone told you they were about to make college football better, would you object?

Nope, but playoffs aren't better - just different.

jersey sooner

3/28/2011, 09:21 PM

Come on. How can you believe that?

Curly Bill

3/28/2011, 09:22 PM

Because like I said: playoffs aren't a ****ing magic bullet! Are they different yes, are they better? No, and I defy you to prove that they are.

jersey sooner

3/28/2011, 09:23 PM

Science

starclassic tama

3/28/2011, 09:29 PM

Leroy Lizard

3/28/2011, 09:38 PM

i go back and forth on the playoff idea. i know basketball is a completely different sport, but are butler/VCU really deserving of playing for the national championship? both teams have some HORRIBLE losses. but they earned it. in college football, flawed as it may be, the BCS at least gives you a matchup of 2 of the top 4 teams just about every year. most years i would say the BCS gives you the two best teams. if college football did introduce a playoff, i would want a 4 team max.

Are we at this point ready to just link a thread to one of the other 100 threads hashing this idea? Nothing changes. Nothing is ever decided. Same arguments, over and over again.

And I win every time. Can we all agree on at least that?

Eielson

3/28/2011, 09:46 PM

Because like I said: playoffs aren't a ****ing magic bullet! Are they different yes, are they better? No, and I defy you to prove that they are.

Nah man, Kentucky, UConn, VCU, and Butler are obviously the best teams in college basketball and one of them deserves to be the champion! A true champion...none of this Auburn crap!

Fraggle145

3/28/2011, 09:51 PM

If you want to blame someone for why the little guy needs be on an equal playing field, look in the mirror. Boise is the reason they deserve a seat, until proven otherwise. But that's also why I said you give all those conferences the same amount of (guaranteed) seats as the SEC. And that's also why I said you only take the highest ranked.

Because they won ONE ****ING GAME?

This is why you suck as a college football fan. They beat one team (us) with any credibility. In one game. On average our guys would have beat them at least 8 out of 10 times.

Who else that is worth a damn has that program beaten? And don you dare say Va Tech. Everyone who has watched a lick of college football knows that that team was all fluff and a scrambling QB. Boise got their **** pushed in at home by Boston College, but everyone forgets that. Got their **** pushed in by UGA, but everyone forgets that.

They dont DESERVE a damn thing. Just because you show up on the field doesnt mean you deserve anything. I bet you have your participation certificates from elementary school still hanging on your wall.

Fraggle145

3/28/2011, 09:52 PM

Come on. How can you believe that?

Because he isnt an idiot. And has watched college football for more than 10 years.

Fraggle145

3/28/2011, 09:55 PM

Science

ITS NOT ****ING SCIENCE. I AM A ****ING SCIENTIST. I DO THIS **** FOR A LIVING.

FOR IT TO BE SCIENCE YOU NEED REPLICATION. YOU NEED ERROR ESTIMATES.

YOU DONT GET THAT AFTER ONE GAME.

GO BACK TO SCHOOL.

Fraggle145

3/28/2011, 10:01 PM

You're not paying attention to the lesson, Fraggle. We have learned that the mark of a true champion is to play weak competition. Those who play tough teams week in and week out deserve nothing but scorn if they lose. It is better to not try, then to try and fail.

We've also learned that people still dont understand the need for replication to understand what the **** is going on with anything.

jersey sooner

3/28/2011, 10:01 PM

hahaha I'm sorry I had to laugh at that...I didn't think there was any real scientists around to insult. I am sincerely sorry, and you are a great man. My hyperbole gets out of hand times :O

Leroy Lizard

3/29/2011, 12:13 AM

hahaha I'm sorry I had to laugh at that...I didn't think there was any real scientists around to insult. I am sincerely sorry, and you are a great man. My hyperbole gets out of hand times :O

If you had said "mathematics" I would have responded with even bigger text.

OU_Sooners75

3/29/2011, 01:47 AM

They knew when they signed with BSU that BSU was in a crappy conference and what their typical out of conference schedule would be too so I don't see it as unfair to them.

Apparently you have no idea what BSU recruits....they damn sure do not land a bunch of 4 star recruits...let alone any 5 star recruits that I can think of.

Boise State thrives off giving the 2 and 3 stars life in D-1a football.

OU_Sooners75

3/29/2011, 01:50 AM

Seriously, it doesn't take a brain surgeon to realize that a playoff in football would kill the bowl system and the meaning of the regular season. College football would die a slow death. No excitement. The bowl system with the national championship game is truly great and exciting. The regular season means something and determines who plays in the championship game while other teams go to bowls. Fans are happy and money can be made by all.

Welll DUH!! it would kill the bowl system, at least how we know it now...but the bowls themselves are killing themselves...considering that 68 of 120 teams can go bowling!!!

As far as the regular season...no it would not kill the meaning of the regular season.

Simple minds think simple thoughts.

Quik Sand

3/29/2011, 01:56 AM

Welll DUH!! it would kill the bowl system, at least how we know it now...but the bowls themselves are killing themselves...considering that 68 of 120 teams can go bowling!!!

As far as the regular season...no it would not kill the meaning of the regular season.

Simple minds think simple thoughts.Hook 'em couldn't even do that hahahaaha

5-7.

OU_Sooners75

3/29/2011, 01:58 AM

Hook 'em couldn't even do that hahahaaha

5-7.

:D

Gandalf_The_Grey

3/29/2011, 02:05 AM

Here is my idea.
1. a 128 team tournament
2. a hat
3. put team names in hat or maybe even get one of those lotto ball things
4. First you draw out 2 team names.
5. Then you have another draw to determine where the game will be played.
6. You lose you are done but you can schedule anyone else that lost if you are pathetic enough to need the revenue.

This is by far the greatest plan. Plus imagine the drama..oh yes here is the OU Sooners ball and wow they will be playing Ohio St.!!! They will be playing at Jeld-Wen Stadium, the home of Portland St. FootbalL!!!! Hurry up and get your tickets because only 20,000 exist!!

MeMyself&Me

3/29/2011, 06:43 AM

Apparently you have no idea what BSU recruits....they damn sure do not land a bunch of 4 star recruits...let alone any 5 star recruits that I can think of.

Boise State thrives off giving the 2 and 3 stars life in D-1a football.

Um... well... I did know that... not sure how that is relative to my post though... :confused:

Are you trying to say that 2 and 3 star recruits aren't smart enough to see BSU's schedule? I mean, I WAS talking about the schedule. Or are you saying they deserve a tournament because they're not as talented? Or are you saying that it's not fair because they weren't good enough to sign with a program that would likely compete for a national title?

OU_Sooners75

3/29/2011, 12:56 PM

Um... well... I did know that... not sure how that is relative to my post though... :confused:

Are you trying to say that 2 and 3 star recruits aren't smart enough to see BSU's schedule? I mean, I WAS talking about the schedule. Or are you saying they deserve a tournament because they're not as talented? Or are you saying that it's not fair because they weren't good enough to sign with a program that would likely compete for a national title?

Its relevant because you said the BSU kids knew going in that they would be playing in a crappy conference.

When in fact, most of their players would not be playing in a BCS conference in the first place.

So it is not the players fault that the school schedules ****ty games. Sure BSU plays the likes of Oregon or VT or Oregon State...but they have shied away from wanting to schedule the likes of OU, USC, Florida, etc...because those games are not very winnable for them.

They want to schedule games they can win or have a decent chance to do so.

And then, they think they are a big dog on the block because when one of the top teams (mentioned above) tries to schedule them, they demand home and home or a neutral site.

And as far as your comments about a tournament...

I think all conference champions should be allowed to play in a tournament regardless of what conference they are in.

We all know that the winners of the Sunbelt, C-USA, MAC, WAC, and MWC, will not likely win a playoff championship (hell you could probably through in the Big East as well). But I think they should be given the opportunity to try!

SoonerPride

3/29/2011, 01:05 PM

We all know that the winners of the Sunbelt, C-USA, MAC, WAC, and MWC, will not likely win a playoff championship (hell you could probably through in the Big East as well). But I think they should be given the opportunity to try!

Why?

MeMyself&Me

3/29/2011, 01:55 PM

Its relevant because you said the BSU kids knew going in that they would be playing in a crappy conference.

When in fact, most of their players would not be playing in a BCS conference in the first place.

Sooo, it's not fair to them because they're not good enough to play in a program that would normally schedule well and be in title contention. OK. I strongly disagree because based on that logic, it's unfair that I didn't get to compete for a national title because I wasn't good enough either. I don't think that way. I don't like participation trophies either.

The fact is that kids choose schools for a lot of reasons and you don't go to BSU thinking you're competing for national titles. Not everyone is good enough to be playing on a title contender and changing to a post season tournament isn't going to change that.

BSU schedules the way they do because it's the best way for them to make money, not the best way to compete for a national title.

OU_Sooners75

3/29/2011, 03:03 PM

Why?

Tell me why not?

In every sport in every division there is a playoff, but one.

And in that one, the playing field is heavy to one side while everyone else just plays exhibition games.

In every sport and division that has a playoff, the weaker teams that either win their conference or division are guaranteed a spot in the playoff/tournament. The top teams that do not win their division or conference still get at-large or wildcard invites.

There should be a fair playoff system that includes all members of the division, not just a select few.

And I'll say this much...if/when the NCAA finally takes control over the postseason play of the FBS football, they will make it fair to all members, not just the members of the super 6 conferences.

Hell, here in Oklahoma High School 6A football, there are teams that are considered to super 6A teams...Union, Jenks, BA, etc. that are going to win the state playoff moreso than an Owasso, Ponca City, or even Enid.

SoonerPride

3/29/2011, 03:20 PM

OU_Sooners75

3/29/2011, 03:28 PM

Why not let Bowlegs in the same post season tournament as Jenks?

They don't deserve it.

They play lesser competition.

Same goes for the Sunbelt Conference champ.

Look, EVERY D1 team has a shot of being in the two team field seeded for post season championship play.

Win all your games.
Play a tough schedule.
Do those two things and you're in.
Pretty simple.

Why water the title down to let chump teams in who don't deserve it?
Because it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy?
Because other sports do it?

That's no rationale.

Try harder.

This has got to be one of the dumbest posts I have read in a very long time.

1. Bowlegs is a much smaller school and in a smaller division. They do good win their conference/district/division then they go to the state playoffs.

This example you gave is like, you are saying that I am saying put App State in the D-1A playoff.

If they are in the same division, then yes, they should be given the same fair play.

If not, then they need to create a new division and call it the Super Majors or something.

Until they do something like that, then they are all the same division, which is D-1A or FBS, which ever you want to call it.

Try harder though!

Your view and opinion is very flawed!

MeMyself&Me

3/29/2011, 03:34 PM

There should be a fair playoff system that includes all members of the division, not just a select few.

I'd say our current system is pretty fair and inclusive enough. Some programs have advantages, yes, but they have earned it over the history of college football. If it weren't for those programs, FBS college football wouldn't be what it is and all these johnny come lately's wouldn't give a **** about being in FBS.

SoonerPride

3/29/2011, 03:38 PM

This has got to be one of the dumbest posts I have read in a very long time.

1. Bowlegs is a much smaller school and in a smaller division. They do good win their conference/district/division then they go to the state playoffs.

This example you gave is like, you are saying that I am saying put App State in the D-1A playoff.

If they are in the same division, then yes, they should be given the same fair play.

If not, then they need to create a new division and call it the Super Majors or something.

Until they do something like that, then they are all the same division, which is D-1A or FBS, which ever you want to call it.

Try harder though!

Your view and opinion is very flawed!

I say they are given a fair chance. The playoff we have now is a two team field. It's very hard to qualify. But win all your games and have a tough schedule and you're in.

Nothing in your diatribe convinces me otherwise.

MeMyself&Me

3/29/2011, 04:15 PM

I say they are given a fair chance. The playoff we have now is a two team field. It's very hard to qualify. But win all your games and have a tough schedule and you're in.

Nothing in your diatribe convinces me otherwise.

This too. BSU could schedule to be a contender, but they don't.

OU_Sooners75

3/29/2011, 05:53 PM

I'd say our current system is pretty fair and inclusive enough. Some programs have advantages, yes, but they have earned it over the history of college football. If it weren't for those programs, FBS college football wouldn't be what it is and all these johnny come lately's wouldn't give a **** about being in FBS.

Not even close to being fair.

There are always going to be some surprise team, sure.

There are 11 conferences currently. 120 teams.

Only about 69 or 70 teams have the chance to an auto-bid. The rest are at-large and you have to be ranked a certain position to get in the BCS.

The BCS is the biggest farce in all of sports. The thing good about it is there is a preconceived notion that the two teams playing for the title game are the two best in the nation, which is not always the case.

I personally could careless if there is a playoff...but the BCS is not the answer either. It has just allowed the Big Conferences to get richer, or the chance too.

We either need a playoff that includes all conference champs and a few other top ranked teams...or go back to the old bowl system!

OU_Sooners75

3/29/2011, 05:55 PM

I say they are given a fair chance. The playoff we have now is a two team field. It's very hard to qualify. But win all your games and have a tough schedule and you're in.

Nothing in your diatribe convinces me otherwise.

Simple minds think simple thoughts. And those with simple minds are afraid of changes.

OU_Sooners75

3/29/2011, 05:56 PM

This too. BSU could schedule to be a contender, but they don't.

Tell me exactly how they can schedule to be a contender? Sure, they can schedule 3 or 4 very tough non-conference games, but they still have to play in their crappy conference.

Maybe they should petition a BCS conference to be a part of it. But no conference is going to really want them, because they are only decent in football, everything else they suck *** in! Think Iowa State suckage but ten fold.

jersey sooner

3/29/2011, 06:16 PM

For the record, I shouldn't have made it sound like I only support a playoff with the "little guy." I want a playoff more than I want a playoff that guarantees the "little guy" gets in. Somebody (75 I think) said the NCAA would only allow a format that is fair to all and I assumed that's probably true. So I proposed something that should be able to stop them from crying foul while making sense for the sport at the same time. If you told me they were going to make a playoff with the 10 highest ranked teams, I would have no objection. But here's something for the "they don't deserve to be given a chance" crowd to ponder. Every single non-aq/inde-Notre Dame-pendent team from the past 7 seasons who would have gotten the automatic bid into the playoff as the highest ranked team of the bunch, would also have gotten in if you took the top 10 ranked teams in the country. And twice a second would have gotten in with the wildcard. That's why I would have no problem letting them in if it meant this thing would get done. Shoot, I'm not sure I wouldn't actually prefer it. Boise already proved anything can happen on a big stage. And I think a question I posed earlier got overlooked. Does anyone "who has watched a lick of college football" not think TCU was the best team last year? And by "best team," I mean would have been on the field.

jersey sooner

3/29/2011, 06:20 PM

We either need a playoff that includes all conference champs and a few other top ranked teams...or go back to the old bowl system!

This is the only thing you're wrong about. Why would every conference champion have to get in? The WAC, MAC, Sun Belt, MW, CUSA, and Notre Dame combined couldn't beat an SEC team. So it wouldn't make any sense anyway to give each of them the same respect.

OU_Sooners75

3/29/2011, 06:21 PM

Hard to say about TCU...

They did beat Wisconsin...but who knows.

I do know this much though...they were not given the chance to prove if they were or not....and that is what a playoff is good for!

OU_Sooners75

3/29/2011, 06:23 PM

This is the only thing you're wrong about. Why would every conference champion have to get in? The WAC, MAC, Sun Belt, MW, CUSA, and Notre Dame combined couldn't beat an SEC team. So it wouldn't make any sense anyway to give each of them the same respect.

You can say I am wrong until you are blue in the face. It would be the only FAIR way for the NCAA to do it.

Now, if the schools/conferences got together and made a format like you suggested, I wouldn't object either. It does give the mid-majors a good chance to make the playoff.

I am not saying it should be the way I suggested it, but that would be the only true fair way to do it.

Leroy Lizard

3/29/2011, 06:24 PM

In every sport and division that has a playoff, the weaker teams that either win their conference or division are guaranteed a spot in the playoff/tournament.

A lot of teams refuse to even participate in the playoffs, citing such things as academics.

OU_Sooners75

3/29/2011, 06:25 PM

A lot of teams refuse to even participate in the playoffs, citing such things as academics.

Which schools? The ones that do not have a playoff in the first place?

Tell me, how much school are they going to be missing around Christmas and New Years? Or how it is going to mess with their academics, especially since 99% of the CFB games are held on Saturdays!

Hell, Basketball and baseball players miss a ton more academic work, in season, than any football player does!

Leroy Lizard

3/29/2011, 06:28 PM

I'd say our current system is pretty fair and inclusive enough. Some programs have advantages, yes, but they have earned it over the history of college football. If it weren't for those programs, FBS college football wouldn't be what it is and all these johnny come lately's wouldn't give a **** about being in FBS.

The current system rewards long-term improvement over short-term flash. I have no problem with that. If a school really wants to compete for a national title (and I doubt most do), they can build up their program over a number of years to gain respect.

For all the talk about small fry having no chance in the current system, at one time Florida State and Miami were small fry. Yet they steadily improved and became major players. In the current system, that's how it's done.

Instead, some in here are advocating a system where a weak team can take advantage of a cupcake schedule to nab glory in one season. I don't like that system. (I also think it's an illusion, as every year the playoff is instituted these small fry will slip further and further behind.)

jersey sooner

3/29/2011, 06:29 PM

jersey sooner

3/29/2011, 06:36 PM

The current system rewards long-term improvement over short-term flash. I have no problem with that. If a school really wants to compete for a national title (and I doubt most do), they can build up their program over a number of years to gain respect.

For all the talk about small fry having no chance in the current system, at one time Florida State and Miami were small fry. Yet they steadily improved and became major players. In the current system, that's how it's done.

Instead, some in here are advocating a system where a weak team can take advantage of a cupcake schedule to nab glory in one season. I don't like that system. (I also think it's an illusion, as every year the playoff is instituted these small fry will slip further and further behind.)

And why did Florida State and Miami improve at ironically the same time? Because they had the chance to play in a big game, coincidentally against each other. Being located in Florida had something to do with it too. What exactly is so wrong with a "weak" team being given a small chance. If they are so weak, it won't make a difference anyway. But I'd put my money on last years "weak" team winning it, on the field. And not because they were "weak."

Leroy Lizard

3/29/2011, 06:36 PM

Which schools? The ones that do not have a playoff in the first place?

The Ivy League refuses to participate in FCS playoffs. Those who claim that the FCS playoff is great for the weaker schools doesn't have a clue. If anything, the FCS has entrenched a small number of schools as the "haves," the "have nots" don't even bother trying.

Tell me, how much school are they going to be missing around Christmas and New Years? Or how it is going to mess with their academics, especially since 99% of the CFB games are held on Saturdays!

You can use all the exclamation points you want, but the truth is that the Ivy League does not participate and has cited academics as the reason. (They have also cited concerns about the commercialization of the sport. Imagine that.) Do you want to call the leaders of Harvard, Yale, and Princeton and tell them that they're wrong?

jersey sooner

3/29/2011, 06:38 PM

That's why they're the ****ing Ivy League :rolleyes:

Leroy Lizard

3/29/2011, 06:44 PM

And why did Florida State and Miami improve at ironically the same time? Because they had the chance to play in a big game, coincidentally against each other. Being located in Florida had something to do with it too.

The game became a big game after they became powers. But if you are so focused on the state of Florida, consider also Virginia Tech. They were a team that was nothing until the 1990s, but have now garnered a reputation that is somewhat overkill. If they finish undefeated, they will likely be playing for the national title.

What exactly is so wrong with a "weak" team being given a small chance. If they are so weak, it won't make a difference anyway. But I'd put my money on last years "weak" team winning it, on the field. And not because they were "weak."

My point flew right over your head. I don't care if the weaker team could have won it all. The system is biased towards stable programs, and I don't find anything wrong with that. (In this way college football mirrors the business world.)

Leroy Lizard

3/29/2011, 06:46 PM

That's why they're the ****ing Ivy League :rolleyes:

Do you have something against certain plants? What the Hell difference does it make? If you want to discard their concerns because of their conference, then why are you so concerned about teams in the Sun Belt Conference?

Try to be consistent.

OU_Sooners75

3/29/2011, 06:48 PM

**** THIS BEING PERFECTLY FAIR TO THE LITTLE GUY BULL ****. **** IT RIGHT UP THE ***. Nothing in the history of college football has indicated that a playoff should be perfectly fair. And nothing about the way the Sun Belt plays football would indicate that them getting an automatic bid would be fair. The fairest way is to equate all of them to one major conference. And yes, I get what you're saying about the NCAA making it appear to be fair. But everyone with a football brain would know it wasn't.

Let me put it this way for you, since you fail to understand:

I played at a little NAIA school back when the NAIA still had two divisions. Yet the playoffs had D1 and D2 in the same playoff.

The only way you got there was by winning your conference.

Basically the difference between the two were D1 could give full rides. D2 only partials.

Now then, I went to a D2 NAIA school, transferred there from a much bigger programs. Reasons, well, Ill leave that to myself.

Anyway, We won our conference each year I was there. We had to start the playoffs playing a D1 school. We ended up making the Semi-Finals 2 years in a row.

I played for that little guy...and the little guy performed pretty well. So yes, even the little guys can prove to be worthy from time to time.

Granted, that is not D-1A football, but it is among the same talent level that each plays. NAIA plays other NAIA talent level. D-1A plays other D-1A talent.

Hope you catch what I am saying.

Did the NAIA have to let the little guy in the playoff for a chance? Nope...but they did and they performed just as good as the big boy!

If the NAIA playoffs were like you want it...we would never had been given the chance to play it out on the field. And since we were, for two years my team was able to make deep runs in the playoff and be only a total of 9 points from being in both National Championship games.

So you can say it is bull**** to give the little guy a chance. I say it is only fair to do so.

Be that fairness come from top 10 teams only or all conference champs get an auto-bid...at least give them the shot to prove it on the field.

Leroy Lizard

3/29/2011, 07:04 PM

Be that fairness come from top 10 teams only or all conference champs get an auto-bid...at least give them the shot to prove it on the field.

That all sounds rosy. Reality is another story:

The [NAIA] National Championship is a rematch of the 2007 and 2008 events, when Carroll won the first meeting and Sioux Falls exacted revenge in 2008. Sioux Falls has won the previous two titles and three of the last four. Prior to that, Carroll won four-straight rings from 2002-05. Amazingly, one of these two teams has captured the National Championship since 2002.

So cut the misty-eyed "we're in it for the little guy" crap.

And this has happened in the absence of massive media exposure. Playing games on the big stage would only strengthen the few powerful teams in NAIA. After a few years, no one would want to play for anyone other than these few dominant powerhouses.

Reality versus perception.

jersey sooner

3/29/2011, 07:18 PM

If they finish undefeated, they will likely be playing for the national title.

Not if 2 teams start the season ranked ahead of them and also go undefeated.

My point flew right over your head. I don't care if the weaker team could have won it all. The system is biased towards stable programs, and I don't find anything wrong with that. (In this way college football mirrors the business world.)

No, jackass. My point flew right over your head. TCU wasn't the weak team. But because the system is biased towards stable programs, the "weak: hindsight probably the best" team in 2010 wasn't even given exactly a 0 percent chance to win the championship.

Do you have something against certain plants? What the Hell difference does it make? If you want to discard their concerns because of their conference, then why are you so concerned about teams in the Sun Belt Conference?

Try to be consistent.

Again you suck. "Academics do matter! Even the Ivy League, a group of the most prestigious academic institutions in the world, thinks their students' academics are too important to be interfered with by a playoff. So obviously Ohio State and Oklahoma are thinking the same!"

Try not to suck.

So you can say it is bull**** to give the little guy a chance. I say it is only fair to do so.

Be that fairness come from top 10 teams only or all conference champs get an auto-bid...at least give them the shot to prove it on the field.

Unfortunately, you failed to understand. Not once did I say it's bull**** to give the little guy a chance. I am saying however that it's bull**** to water down the sport for the sake of giving every little guy a chance. I'm dying to know what it is about guaranteeing a non-aq one out of ten playoff spots isn't considered "giving them a shot to prove it on the field." But you know that argument anti-playoff people use about how great the regular season is? They're absolutely right about needing to preserve the regular season, and it's also why they look so stupid when they oppose a small playoff that would actually enhance it.

Leroy Lizard

3/29/2011, 07:23 PM

No, jackass. My point flew right over your head. TCU wasn't the weak team. But because the system is biased towards stable programs, the "weak: hindsight probably the best" team in 2010 wasn't even given exactly a 0 percent chance to win the championship.

Yeah, because the system favors stable programs.

Why are you arguing against my point? You agree. You just don't like the way it is and I think it's fine.

For one, I am an OU fan and OU benefits from this stability-oriented system. A Poke fan would argue against it.

Hmmm....

Again you suck. "Academics do matter! Even the Ivy League, a group of the most prestigious academic institutions in the world, thinks their students' academics are too important to be interfered with by a playoff. So obviously Ohio State and Oklahoma are thinking the same!"

Glad you agree that a playoff system is bad for academics. I failed to note your sarcasm correctly. I apologize, and I'm glad you're on board.

jersey sooner

3/29/2011, 07:29 PM

So you're in favor of a system that favors "stable programs" over a system that favors the best teams?

Jacie

3/29/2011, 07:30 PM

You will never convince someone who thinks they are right about everything that they could possibly be wrong about something . . .

jersey sooner

3/29/2011, 07:31 PM

I know. But hopefully along the way you can open some eyes.

Leroy Lizard

3/29/2011, 07:32 PM

So you're in favor of a system that favors "stable programs" over a system that favors the best teams?

It's not mutually exclusive. A 8-5 Michigan team is not going to win the title over a 10-0 TCU team just because it has won in the past.

Think of it like business. You get the contract because you have a great proposal and because you have a lot of experience/success behind you. Startups have to work for awhile to get there, even if their proposal is a bit stronger. (Not saying that college football should be modeled like a business, just using an analogy to clarify.)

Leroy Lizard

3/29/2011, 07:33 PM

You will never convince someone who thinks they are right about everything that they could possibly be wrong about something . . .

That kind of applies to all of us. You, too.

BTW, the gripes about the fact that I dare to think I'm right are pretty ubiquitous in these playoff threads. After all, I rarely argue that I'm wrong. No one else does either.

jersey sooner

3/29/2011, 07:34 PM

So you're in favor of a system that favors "stable programs" over a system that favors the best teams.

Leroy Lizard

3/29/2011, 07:36 PM

So you're in favor of a system that favors "stable programs" over a system that favors the best teams

I thought I answered that already.

jersey sooner

3/29/2011, 07:42 PM

So you're in favor of a system that favors "stable programs" over a system that favors the best teams? Yes or no this time.

Leroy Lizard

3/29/2011, 07:47 PM

So you're in favor of a system that favors "stable programs" over a system that favors the best teams? Yes or no this time.

I don't play schoolyard Q&A.

Go back what I said: I favor a system that rewards schools for their stability.

And OU is definitely one of those schools, if not the top school in that regard. So do I favor a system that favors OU? Yeah, I see nothing wrong with that.

jersey sooner

3/29/2011, 07:53 PM

So you're in favor of a system that favors "stable programs" over a system that favors the best teams.

jersey sooner

3/29/2011, 07:55 PM

You guys should try being a fan of college football as a whole sometimes, too. It can be fun.

Leroy Lizard

3/29/2011, 07:56 PM

So you're in favor of a system that favors "stable programs" over a system that favors the best teams.

Once again, I never said that.

jersey sooner

3/29/2011, 08:09 PM

Once again, I never said that.

TCU wasn't the weak team. But because the system is biased towards stable programs, the "weak: hindsight probably the best" team in 2010 was given exactly a 0 percent chance to win the championship.

Yeah, because the system favors stable programs.

Why are you arguing against my point? You agree. You just don't like the way it is and I think it's fine.

:confused:

jersey sooner

3/29/2011, 08:11 PM

I don't care if the weaker team could have won it all. The system is biased towards stable programs, and I don't find anything wrong with that.
;)

Leroy Lizard

3/29/2011, 08:12 PM

So you favor a system that favors a team like the Pokes over one that favors teams like OU?

Yes or no?

Remember, you have to say yes or no.

Sorry to do that, but we have to find out if you're a Sooner fan or a Poke fan. (And don't bitch; you're the one that wants to play this silly game.)

jersey sooner

3/29/2011, 08:24 PM

I favor a system that favors teams like OU. That system is a small playoff. Or were you somehow trying to imply that a playoff would favor the pokes? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

SoonerPride

3/29/2011, 08:28 PM

Leroy Lizard

3/29/2011, 08:29 PM

I favor a system that favors teams like OU. That system is a small playoff. Or were you somehow trying to imply that a playoff would favor the pokes?

OU is probably the most stable program in the country, so why would you not favor a system that rewards stable programs?

jersey sooner

3/29/2011, 08:30 PM

Then you favor the current system of a two team playoff.

Thanks.

/thread

Sure, if you think the system right now is the only one that would favor us. In which case you should start watching golf.

jersey sooner

3/29/2011, 08:32 PM

Seriously lizzy? Because the entire concept of sport is to have the best teams play it out. And in college football, you can very rarely tell who the 2 best teams are at the end of the season.

silverwheels

3/29/2011, 08:33 PM

I wonder if we can fill the whole first page with playoff threads...maybe after the Spring Game?

OU_Sooners75

3/29/2011, 08:35 PM

That all sounds rosy. Reality is another story:

So cut the misty-eyed "we're in it for the little guy" crap.

And this has happened in the absence of massive media exposure. Playing games on the big stage would only strengthen the few powerful teams in NAIA. After a few years, no one would want to play for anyone other than these few dominant powerhouses.

Reality versus perception.

If you think I was in college when those two teams took over, you are sadly mistaken. I am a little older than that.

However, in NAIA so called dynasties really didnt appear until after a lot of the schools in Oklahoma moved to the NCAA.

Leroy Lizard

3/29/2011, 08:36 PM

Seriously lizzy? Because the entire concept of sport is to have the best teams play it out. And in college football, you can very rarely tell who the 2 best teams are at the end of the season.

But we know which programs are the most stable, and OU is one of those programs. So if you are a true Sooner fan, you would favor a system that favors stable programs.

But you don't. So you favor the Pokes.

Or, perhaps you should concede that this idea of trying to paint people into corners can backfire.

jersey sooner

3/29/2011, 08:39 PM

What if I was to say I favor the game of football?

jersey sooner

3/29/2011, 08:39 PM

And I should have asked this a while ago, but what do you mean when you say this system favors stable programs?

Leroy Lizard

3/29/2011, 08:40 PM

If you think I was in college when those two teams took over, you are sadly mistaken. I am a little older than that.

That proves my point about what happens over time to comparative team strengths in football once playoffs get instituted.

However, in NAIA so called dynasties really didnt appear until after a lot of the schools in Oklahoma moved to the NCAA.

Oh yeah, that must be it. :rolleyes:

OU_Sooners75

3/29/2011, 08:40 PM

But we know which programs are the most stable, and OU is one of those programs. So if you are a true Sooner fan, you would favor a system that favors stable programs.

But you don't. So you favor the Pokes.

Or, perhaps you should concede that this idea of trying to paint people into corners can backfire.

That makes no ****ing sense at all!

First and foremost stability has nothing to do with it. If it had, then the likes of teams such as Miami, Florida, Florida State, Auburn, Oregon, etc would never have come about to be playing for any national championships.

Each season is a new...ask Texas about that. 11 10+ win seasons and then they go 5-7...

Neither what we have now or a playoff would give two ****s about stability of a program since the outcomes are determined about what happens from the season.

SoonerPride

3/29/2011, 08:41 PM

Seriously lizzy? Because the entire concept of sport is to have the best teams play it out. And in college football, you can very rarely tell who the 2 best teams are at the end of the season.

I disagree.

The BCS has done a perfect job of picking the two best teams to seed the playoff.

It has never failed.

Not once.

The whining you hear from the third place team would only increase in volume for those teams with similar records (9-3 teams abound) that get left out.

College football is the only sport that the best team always wins the title.

The other sports reward teams who get hot at the end of the year, but are quite often not the best team of that season.

jersey sooner

3/29/2011, 08:42 PM

Leroy Lizard

3/29/2011, 08:42 PM

What if I was to say I favor the game of football?

So WTF are they playing right now? Badminton?

And I should have asked this a while ago, but what do you mean when you say this system favors stable programs?

Go back and read the posts in this thread.

OU_Sooners75

3/29/2011, 08:44 PM

That proves my point about what happens over time to comparative team strengths in football once playoffs get instituted.

Oh yeah, that must be it. :rolleyes:

you do know that a lot of the Texas and Oklahoma schools that were in the NAIA through the 1990s were the ones pretty much winning a lot of the ones playing for National Championships. Huron College as well.

Carroll has been a very good program for years...but the landscape of the NAIA has changed quite a bit since 2000.

Hell, I predict by 2050, the NAIA will no longer exist. The money of the NCAA is just too powerful to refuse it.

Leroy Lizard

3/29/2011, 08:44 PM

That makes no ****ing sense at all!

You and Jersey Sooner need to get together and iron this out between the two of you.

SoonerPride

3/29/2011, 08:44 PM

Sure, if you think the system right now is the only one that would favor us. In which case you should start watching golf.

I favor a system which rewards a strong shcedule and a good season.

You want every jackanape team to "get a fair shot" which sounds like communism to me mister.

Screw 'em.

The playoff formula we have now is as close to perfect as you can get in whittling down 120+ teams into a two team field.

It's REALLY hard to qualify for the BCS playoff.

You want to make it easier.

Lame.

jersey sooner

3/29/2011, 08:45 PM

The whining you hear from the third place team would only increase in volume for those teams with similar records (9-3 teams abound) that get left out.

And this is where a lot of people are dead wrong. We are not having this conversation because a bunch of 9-3 teams think they were more deserving. We are having this conversation because quite often an undefeated #3 team was given a zero percent chance at a championship. It's really as simple as that.

SoonerPride

3/29/2011, 08:46 PM

You have absolutely got to be kidding me. Did you not watch the Rose Bowl and the NC game last year?

I never watch the Rose Bowl. It's a snooze fest.

The one exception, ever, was when I saw OU play WSU and I was there in person.

The Rose Bowl has always been NYD nap time for me.

Sorry.

Don't.
Care.
About.
The.
Rose.
Bowl.

SoonerPride

3/29/2011, 08:48 PM

And this is where a lot of people are dead wrong. We are not having this conversation because a bunch of 9-3 teams think they were more deserving. We are having this conversation because quite often an undefeated #3 team was given a zero percent chance at a championship. It's really as simple as that.

Quite often?

Really?

OU_Sooners75

3/29/2011, 08:49 PM

I disagree.

The BCS has done a perfect job of picking the two best teams to seed the playoff.

It has never failed.

Not once.

The whining you hear from the third place team would only increase in volume for those teams with similar records (9-3 teams abound) that get left out.

College football is the only sport that the best team always wins the title.

The other sports reward teams who get hot at the end of the year, but are quite often not the best team of that season.

yeah, because in 2000 there were three teams that all had equal entitlement to play against OU.
In 2001, Nebraska should not have been there. Oregon should have been.
In 2002, they got it right.
In 2003, I think they got it right, but a lot of folks think USC should have been there since OU lost their last game before heading to bowl season.
In 2004, OU, USC, and Auburn all deserved it. after we got our *** kicked, I think it should have been USC and Auburn, but hind sight is 20/20.
In 2005, they got it right.
2006 I think they got it right, even with Boise State being the only undefeated team that year.
In 2007, LSU? Really? There were better 1 loss teams in the nation than them.
In 2008, I think they got the right matchup even though Texas could have been there too. Same with Alabama, Utah, and yes, even Texas Tech.
In 2009, I think they got it right.
2010...TCU had a very strong argument. Oregon was not even a top 5 team IMHO, but got lucky playing a down PAC-10 schedule and having one of the worst, if not the worst, schedule of any top 20 team.

So yeah, the BCS has never gotten it wrong.:rolleyes:

Can I have what this tool is smokin'? Please?

jersey sooner

3/29/2011, 08:55 PM

So WTF are they playing right now? Badminton?

No. But they're not playing football at it's full potential either.

Go back and read the posts in this thread.

Just did, and no where did you imply anything other than big name programs are favored in the system. Which is absolutely retarded. Do you not know that other than pre-season rankings, which I want blown to smitherenes, a teams ranking at the end of a season has no correlation to the next season?

I favor a system which rewards a strong shcedule and a good season.

No, you favor a system that rewards 2 out of 120 teams for a strong schedule and a good season.

You want every jackanape team to "get a fair shot" which sounds like communism to me mister.

If by "every jackanape team" you mean "10 out of 120, and only 1 of the ten guaranteed to have played a weak schedule" then yes.

The playoff formula we have now is as close to perfect as you can get in whittling down 120+ teams into a two team field.

It's REALLY hard to qualify for the BCS playoff.

It's even harder to know for sure who the best 2 teams are at the end of the season.

Quite often?

Really?

See 75. He gets it.

OU_Sooners75

3/29/2011, 09:00 PM

What if I was to say I favor the game of football?

Dont say that...some of the ones we are talking to in this thread only are here because we have been pretty successful as of late. So they just want it to be about OU...

Once/if OU falls off again, they will be gone!

SoonerPride

3/29/2011, 09:01 PM

OU_Sooners75

3/29/2011, 09:05 PM

But are there 4 or 8 or 16 teams in any year which deserve a title shot?

You can't just argue for third place. You have to justify how many teams your playoff scheme involves.

That is unless you are proposing a three team playoff.

hell any playoff would be better than what we have now.

4 teams, 8 teams or even 16. Anything beyond 16 would be overkill and a waste of time and resources.

Hell, it would improve what we have now...I would make the top 4 play each other. and the two winners play in the BCS title game the following week.

Anything would be better than the current system!

And if they do just the top 4 teams, then they need to do away with conference alignment.

OU_Sooners75

3/29/2011, 09:07 PM

Here is another proposal

Take 8 teams...

Conference champs of:

ACC, Big 12-2, Big 10+2, PAC-12, Big Least, and the SEC...and then add the top 2 BCS ranked teams that do not fit the category of conference champ.

If you are not a conference champ, you must be a top 8 BCS team to qualify.

And let them all slug it out.

SoonerPride

3/29/2011, 09:08 PM

hell any playoff would be better than what we have now.

4 teams, 8 teams or even 16. Anything beyond 16 would be overkill and a waste of time and resources.

Hell, it would improve what we have now...I would make the top 4 play each other. and the two winners play in the BCS title game the following week.

Anything would be better than the current system!

And if they do just the top 4 teams, then they need to do away with conference alignment.

Oh I see.

So instead of justifying in any given year why the top 4/8/16 teams deserved it more than the two teams which were seeded in the BCS playoff, you'd just throw up your hands and say willy nilly that "oh anything is better than what we have now."

Brilliant.

SoonerPride

3/29/2011, 09:09 PM

OU_Sooners75

3/29/2011, 09:10 PM

Oh I see.

So instead of justifying in any given year why the top 4/8/16 teams deserved it more than the two teams which were seeded in the BCS playoff, you'd just throw up your hands and say willy nilly that "oh anything is better than what we have now."

Brilliant.

No, I am just done speaking to stupid people about it...and you fit that bill.

Like I said in an earlier post....

Simple minds think simple thoughts and simple minds are afraid of change.

silverwheels

3/29/2011, 09:11 PM

I say we stop designating teams as national champions.

OU_Sooners75

3/29/2011, 09:13 PM

So the flawed BCS which you don't like seeding a 2 team field is accerptable if it seeds an 8 team field?

How convenient.

Nice edit!

There is no 2 seed playoff right now.

there is a system that is based on 2/3 media and personal bias complimented by 1/3 computer rankings that weigh each team the same way.

So basically what we have is 2 teams that ESPiN and Harris thinks are the two best teams in the nation, even though they havent proved it on the field...just the schedule given to them 4 or 5 years ago.

SoonerPride

3/29/2011, 09:13 PM

I say we stop designating teams as national champions.

If you haven't noticed, they settle it on the field. They stopped designating champions with the advent of the BCS.

silverwheels

3/29/2011, 09:14 PM

If you haven't noticed, they settle it on the field. They stopped designating champions with the advent of the BCS.

Haha. Sure.

Leroy Lizard

3/29/2011, 09:15 PM

you do know that a lot of the Texas and Oklahoma schools that were in the NAIA through the 1990s were the ones pretty much winning a lot of the ones playing for National Championships. Huron College as well.

Carroll has been a very good program for years...but the landscape of the NAIA has changed quite a bit since 2000.

Hell, I predict by 2050, the NAIA will no longer exist. The money of the NCAA is just too powerful to refuse it.

Do you think that this problem with a relative few teams dominating year after year is relegated only to the NAIA?

Let's look at the NCAA Division III playoffs. Hmmm....

Mount Union and Wisconsin-Whitewater national titles: 1993, 1996, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010

So what excuse do you have for that?

jersey sooner

3/29/2011, 09:15 PM

So the flawed BCS which you don't like seeding a 2 team field is accerptable if it seeds an 8 team field?

How convenient.

Jesus Christ, how did you miss the part about "conference champions"

OU_Sooners75

3/29/2011, 09:15 PM

If you haven't noticed, they settle it on the field. They stopped designating champions with the advent of the BCS.

You cannot honestly be this stupid!

SoonerPride

3/29/2011, 09:15 PM

No, I am just done speaking to stupid people about it...and you fit that bill.

Like I said in an earlier post....

Simple minds think simple thoughts and simple minds are afraid of change.

Your personal attack aside, your advocating change for change's sake isn't very convincing.

jersey sooner

3/29/2011, 09:17 PM

I say we stop designating only 2 teams to play for a national championship.

FIFY I think it's what you meant

silverwheels

3/29/2011, 09:21 PM

FIFY I think it's what you meant

No, that's not what I meant. The old system was a joke. The BCS is a joke. Odds are against a playoff not being a joke. If anything, I'd like to go back to the old bowl tie-ins and just not hand out a trophy. It's so hard to determine a national champion when you have 120 teams split up into such uneven conferences (in terms of both quality and quantity) with such uneven schedules. If we could trim down Division 1 (FBS, whatever) and regulate the schedules, then I would like to see a playoff. If done now, it would be a huge mess and most likely would not be any better than the BCS. It would probably be more entertaining, though.

SoonerPride

3/29/2011, 09:24 PM

No, that's not what I meant. The old system was a joke. The BCS is a joke. Odds are against a playoff not being a joke. If anything, I'd like to go back to the old bowl tie-ins and just not hand out a trophy. It's so hard to determine a national champion when you have 120 teams split up into such uneven conferences (in terms of both quality and quantity) with such uneven schedules. If we could trim down Division 1 (FBS, whatever) and regulate the schedules, then I would like to see a playoff. If done now, it would be a huge mess and most likely would not be any better than the BCS. It would probably be more entertaining, though.

I'd mostly agree with everything here.

My only caveat is that the BCS is better than the way it used to be and also better than any expanded playoff scheme I have yet seen put forth that was remotely plausible and not merely a pipe dream that would never happen.

OU_Sooners75

3/29/2011, 09:24 PM

Your personal attack aside, your advocating change for change's sake isn't very convincing.

I am not trying to be convincing...I am stating my opinion...and that is that any form of a TRUE TOURNAMENT will be better than what we have.

If you took my post as a personal attack then you should do a little soul searching....

Like I said, I am done speaking to stupid people.

Stop your drivel and convince me why the BCS is such a great thing.

jersey sooner

3/29/2011, 09:24 PM

jersey sooner

3/29/2011, 09:25 PM

SoonerPride

3/29/2011, 09:26 PM

I am not trying to be convincing...I am stating my opinion...and that is that any form of a TRUE TOURNAMENT will be better than what we have.

If you took my post as a personal attack then you should do a little soul searching....

Like I said, I am done speaking to stupid people.

Stop your drivel and convince me why the BCS is such a great thing.

No need to waste my time with stupid people either. :rolleyes:

/ignore.

jersey sooner

3/29/2011, 09:27 PM

Stop your drivel and convince me why the BCS is such a great thing.

Trick question, Ditka is God. If you ask why the BCS is better than a playoff, at least you give them a shot in hell at answering.

Leroy Lizard

3/29/2011, 09:28 PM

Leroy Lizard

3/29/2011, 09:29 PM

I am not trying to be convincing...I am stating my opinion...and that is that any form of a TRUE TOURNAMENT will be better than what we have.

Not if it looks like:

Mount Union and Wisconsin-Whitewater national titles: 1993, 1996, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010

You still haven't responded to that point.

silverwheels

3/29/2011, 09:30 PM

Why even have the sport then? lol

$$$$$

OU_Sooners75

3/29/2011, 09:31 PM

I'd mostly agree with everything here.

My only caveat is that the BCS is better than the way it used to be and also better than any expanded playoff scheme I have yet seen put forth that was remotely plausible and not merely a pipe dream that would never happen.

Honest question...how old are you? You graduate High School in the 1990s or before or in the 2000s?

Because I can say this much. I grew up half and half. I grew up with the actual old system. I was in High school with the bowl alliance. Then I was ending my college career when the BCS started.

And I can tell you right now, the latter two, are a joke compared to the old bowl system.

Sure, it is cool to see the "presumed" #1 and #2 teams playing in a bowl game.

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.

So in otherwords, there hasn't really been a vast improvement in that...and that was the goal of the BCS, outside of pitting the "presumed" #1 vs. #2.

In that aspect, they have gotten right, every year of the BCS, the BCS #1 and #2 have played each other....doesnt mean that the two best teams have played each other!

SoonerPride

3/29/2011, 09:32 PM

Here is what this whole discussion boils down to: The BCS allows an undefeated team to have zero chance at the national championship. A playoff would allow the best teams to play for said championship, in a win or go home environment. That really should be where this conversation ends, and we start talking about what playoff format would be best.

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.

jersey sooner

3/29/2011, 09:33 PM

We called this in Viet Nam the "declare victory and go home" approach.

This is not Nam, Smokey. There are rules.

MeMyself&Me

3/29/2011, 09:34 PM

...or go back to the old bowl system!

I'd be OK with that. I miss the way NYD used to be. And for those that are worried about the current system not being inclusive enough to suit their tastes, the old system was actually more inclusive that what we have now because since the top ranked teams didn't play each other most years, you often had the chance of more than two teams winning the MNC. But then, I think it would be less likely for a team like BSU to get an invite to a major bowl though. Now they get to a BSC bowl through automatic qualifying.

Tell me exactly how they can schedule to be a contender? Sure, they can schedule 3 or 4 very tough non-conference games, but they still have to play in their crappy conference.

Maybe they should petition a BCS conference to be a part of it. But no conference is going to really want them, because they are only decent in football, everything else they suck *** in! Think Iowa State suckage but ten fold.

To the first part, at the end of last season, in the few computer polls I looked at, BSU actually had a higher SOS factor than Oregon. Of course BSU had a loss at that point to negate any advantage they would have had but they did actually schedule better than Oregon did. Actually, a lot of non-auto qualifiers had a better SOS than Oregon. They just didn't go undefeated. However, the human element of the selection criteria may have still favored Oregon but that is something that can be changed without the use of a post season tournament.

To the second part, I don't think the NCAA forced BSU into the harsh life of the FBS. That was a choice BSU made knowing it would be very difficult to get into a BCS conference. I don't have much pity for them on this account.

You can say I am wrong until you are blue in the face. It would be the only FAIR way for the NCAA to do it.

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.

OU_Sooners75

3/29/2011, 09:35 PM

Not if it looks like:

Mount Union and Wisconsin-Whitewater national titles: 1993, 1996, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010

You still haven't responded to that point.

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.

silverwheels

3/29/2011, 09:35 PM

The system we have now would improve if you took out the human polling altogether.

I do agree with this.

SoonerPride

3/29/2011, 09:37 PM

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.

Spot. On.

MeMyself&Me

3/29/2011, 09:40 PM

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.

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.

jersey sooner

3/29/2011, 09:42 PM

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 testement 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.

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.