Started By
Message
re: Did playoffs get it right?
Posted on 1/13/16 at 11:40 am to higgs_boson
Posted on 1/13/16 at 11:40 am to higgs_boson
Clearly they got it right. And frankly, the old BCS formula had Clemson and Bama 1-2 and it would have saved two blowouts semifinal games. Glad we have a 4 team playoff, but the BCS system doesn't get nearly enough credit for matching up the top 2 teams instead of the stupid voting system we had before that where the top 2 teams didn't even play each other many years.
1
Posted on 1/13/16 at 11:42 am to tider04
quote:
Glad we have a 4 team playoff, but the BCS system doesn't get nearly enough credit for matching up the top 2 teams instead of the stupid voting system we had before that where the top 2 teams didn't even play each other many years.
I agree the BCS did a pretty good job on balance. My arse still chafes about 2004 but I do understand why it happened. I do like the fact that having four increases the margin of error in getting the top 2 right. As a fan, I would still like to see an eight team playoff.
Posted on 1/13/16 at 11:47 am to BamaScoop
quote:
Did playoffs get it right?
Most deserving, maybe. Best, probably not.
Posted on 1/13/16 at 11:47 am to BamaScoop
Ohio state would have won.
Posted on 1/13/16 at 11:48 am to higgs_boson
quote:
I agree the BCS did a pretty good job on balance. My arse still chafes about 2004 but I do understand why it happened. I do like the fact that having four increases the margin of error in getting the top 2 right. As a fan, I would still like to see an eight team playoff.
I agree 2004 is the one year where it was really a travesty, but you had 3 undefeated teams and two slots so someone was going to get screwed no matter what. That's why I think a 4 team playoff is justified but absolutely no more than that.
The #5 team in the country never really has a good case IMO, like AU in 2004 did. Even with 4 teams, it's hard on fanbases, teams, etc to make all these trips, book flights, hotels, etc. And we're already playing into mid-January. Adding another round of games would be bad on several levels unless we do away with conference championship games.
Posted on 1/13/16 at 11:50 am to RB10
quote:
Stanford was a better team than MSU
Maybe...I can see your argument that Stanford might have been a better team at the end of the season but MSU had a much better resume than Stanford. MSU had beaten 2 teams in the CFP's top 7 (Ohio State and Iowa)...and although the transitive property is not a primary determinant, MSU beat Oregon, a team that Stanford lost to...and Stanford had a bad loss, losing to Northwestern by double digits. You can argue that MSU had that gift game against Michigan, but it can be countered that they also got jobbed by the refs in their loss to Nebraska...
There's no way the committee could've put Stanford in and dropped MSU...think Stanford would've had a better argument against OU as opposed to MSU...
This post was edited on 1/13/16 at 11:52 am
Posted on 1/13/16 at 11:53 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Most deserving, maybe. Best, probably not.
That's cute. Who else was better? A 2 loss Stanford team? An OSU team that played like garbage against a junior high schedule all year and then lost at home to an MSU team playing with their back-up QB? The same team Bama beat 38-0 with their starting, future NFL QB? Put the crack pipe down, son.
Posted on 1/13/16 at 11:55 am to tider04
Really wish we were able to play OSU this year. Unfortunate that they couldn't finish.
Posted on 1/13/16 at 11:55 am to BamaScoop
I thought Stanford was a top 4 team but whatever.
Posted on 1/13/16 at 11:56 am to tider04
quote:
I agree 2004 is the one year where it was really a travesty, but you had 3 undefeated teams and two slots so someone was going to get screwed no matter what. That's why I think a 4 team playoff is justified but absolutely no more than that.
The #5 team in the country never really has a good case IMO, like AU in 2004 did.
I see your point, but the thing is I think this year shows they probably did not get the top four right. There are just not enough top tier OOC matchups to really determine this imo. I think that is changing, but speaking strictly as a greedy fan, I would love to see an eight team playoff because that would mean some more high quality games.
As far as the costs, I wish they would seed the first round at the higher ranked schools stadium.
This post was edited on 1/13/16 at 11:58 am
Posted on 1/13/16 at 12:04 pm to BamaScoop
quote:
In everyones opinion were Clemson and Alabama the two teams that deserved to be in the championship game last night?
Yes, but I would like to see way less bowls and a 6 team playoff.
Posted on 1/13/16 at 12:04 pm to higgs_boson
quote:
I see your point, but the thing is I think this year shows they probably did not get the top four right. There are just not enough top tier OOC matchups to really determine this imo. I think that is changing, but speaking strictly as a greedy fan, I would love to see an eight team playoff because that would mean some more high quality games.
As far as the costs, I wish they would seed the first round at the higher ranked schools stadium.
I agree they could make a mistake on who the 4th team in is, etc. My point is the purpose of the playoffs isn't to determine without a shadow of a doubt who the #4 team is. It's to make sure the best team wins it on the field of play and there's never going to be a team sitting at #5 that has a legit gripe for getting left out. That team will likely either have multiple losses, or will not have won their conference, or both. In other words, you didn't do what it takes, so shut up and sit down.
I also agree playing the first round on campuses for the top seeds makes sense, but you still have the problem of extending the football season into nearly February to add another round? No thanks. Plus it's incredibly hard to win a title now with 15 games...do we really want college teams playing 16-17 games like the NFL? Again, no thanks.
Posted on 1/13/16 at 12:09 pm to tider04
I see your points there. I think we will just have to agree to disagree.
I think (not sure) Ohio State was number 4 last year. College football will never really be set up to guarantee the best team wins the championship. At best, it will pick the best team that night. Again, I am okay with all of that. 2004 sucked, but I can see how no one would jump preseason 1 and 2 since both went undefeated.
I would drool over some of those matchups and I think it would have clearly shown at least one conference was probably over rated. (looking at you B1G)
I think (not sure) Ohio State was number 4 last year. College football will never really be set up to guarantee the best team wins the championship. At best, it will pick the best team that night. Again, I am okay with all of that. 2004 sucked, but I can see how no one would jump preseason 1 and 2 since both went undefeated.
quote:
1 Clemson 13-0
2 Alabama 12-1
3 Michigan State 12-1
4 Oklahoma 11-1
5 Iowa 12-1
6 Stanford 11-2
7 Ohio State 11-1
8 Notre Dame 10-2
9 Florida State 10-2
I would drool over some of those matchups and I think it would have clearly shown at least one conference was probably over rated. (looking at you B1G)
Posted on 1/13/16 at 12:18 pm to BamaScoop
Yes pretty much. I think it would have been a better playoff with OU vs Bama and MSU vs Clemson, but overall the ending was right.
Posted on 1/13/16 at 12:19 pm to tider04
quote:
Who else was better? Ohio State? Stanford?
Maybe.
quote:
The same team Bama beat 38-0 with their starting, future NFL QB?
Gumps.
Posted on 1/13/16 at 12:21 pm to BamaScoop
yes they got half of it right. Bama, Clemson. I thought Stanford should have taken MSU 's place.
Posted on 1/13/16 at 12:23 pm to higgs_boson
quote:The only way around some of the issues I mentioned would be to shorten the regular season and/or do away with conference title games. And since both of those things are big money makers, neither will happen. As such, it's best for CFB to remain at 4 teams in the playoffs. At MOST, I could see 6 teams with the top 2 seeds getting a bye. And even that would create problems. I think we have it right with 4 and I hope it stays that way.
I see your points there. I think we will just have to agree to disagree.
Posted on 1/13/16 at 12:25 pm to tider04
I know it is a money thing, but I , for one, could do without the one FCS game each year.
Posted on 1/13/16 at 12:26 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
DisplacedBuckeye
You cannot make a case that Stanford or OSU should have been in over any of the 4 that made it in. Again, OSU played like garbage all year and lost the one big game that mattered at home against another team's scrub QB. A team that got obliterated in the playoffs by the eventual national champion. You didn't belong and didn't get in, deal with it.
Posted on 1/13/16 at 12:30 pm to higgs_boson
quote:
I agree the BCS did a pretty good job on balance. My arse still chafes about 2004 but I do understand why it happened. I do like the fact that having four increases the margin of error in getting the top 2 right. As a fan, I would still like to see an eight team playoff.
Honestly you should be happy Oklahoma got the brunt of that skulldragging. Gives you the option to say "if only..."
The way Southern Cal played that night, they'd have beaten any team I've ever seen play college football.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News