Started By
Message
re: I miss poll era football.
Posted on 7/27/19 at 2:43 pm to RollTide1987
Posted on 7/27/19 at 2:43 pm to RollTide1987
It’s funny how most people bend the facts that fit their narrative.
0
Posted on 7/27/19 at 2:48 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
How is that any different from how it used to be done? Back in the day, if you lost a game you were screwed unless something crazy happened to put you back in the running. The same scenario still plays out in the present day. If you went undefeated, there was a good chance that you were going home with either an AP or UPI national championship trophy. The same thing still applies today.
We complain about subjective rankings all the time on this board while thinking the championship is won "on the field" when subjective #1 and subjective #2 meet in a post-season bowl game. Show me the logic.
BCS and CFP are systems everyone agreed to play under.
Posted on 7/27/19 at 2:55 pm to Commander Data
quote:
miss poll era football.
quote:
Bama fan
Checks out. Much easier to be awarded a natty by a poll than actually having to win it on the field huh?
Posted on 7/27/19 at 3:10 pm to Korin
quote:
BCS and CFP are systems everyone agreed to play under.
As was the system that existed during the Poll Era so I fail to see how that answers the question as to how it is any different from the way things used to be done. We've simply been cycling through one subjective system after another for the last 83 years.
Posted on 7/27/19 at 3:11 pm to deltaland
quote:
Much easier to be awarded a natty by a poll than actually having to win it on the field huh?
National Championships won by Alabama in the Poll Era: 6
National Championships won by Alabama in the Post-Poll Era: 6
Posted on 7/27/19 at 3:12 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
Now...according to you, #1 Texas and #2 Oklahoma should have played each other in a re-match - that is if we're going by the BCS standard. But if we go by the CFP standard, the eventual national champions of 1977 don't even make the final field. The four teams would have been #1 Texas vs. #4 Michigan (a team that lost in the Rose Bowl to #13 Washington) and #2 Oklahoma vs. #3 Alabama. Of the four teams that make it in this hypothetical, Alabama was the only team that actually won its bowl game in reality. Notre Dame, the national champion of 1977, is on the outside looking in at #5. But who cares? It's #1 vs. #4 and #2 vs. #3, with the winners advancing to the national championship game.
What you’re really arguing is that national championships shouldn’t even exist, because if there’s any suggestivity occurring in the process at any point, then the whole thing is irrelevant. Unless you want to install a massive playoff format that lets every conference champ in and do away with ranking systems period.
You and I both know that’s never going to happen.
So working with what we have, is it better to try to set up a championship game or to play a bunch of randomly assigned football games in random locations in January and shrug our collective shoulders and let four or five teams “claim” national championships every year?
I mean, hell, you could argue that the Patriots might have lost to the Saints on a neutral field last year. Does that mean that their championship is illegitimate?
Posted on 7/27/19 at 3:12 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
As was the system that existed during the Poll Era
Posted on 7/27/19 at 3:16 pm to Korin
Instead of laughing, prove me wrong. By the early-50s, the vast majority of national title claims were being limited to teams that won either the AP or the UPI. That tells me there was agreement among the schools that this was the way national championships would be awarded. It wasn't until the early-90s that line of thinking began to change.
Posted on 7/27/19 at 3:17 pm to RollTide1987
You and I both know that the BCS was the first system everyone agreed to play under with a specific trophy everyone agreed to play for. The onus is on you to prove your claim.
Posted on 7/27/19 at 3:56 pm to Korin
Yes they were game time rankings if you want to look at the final season rankings then Auburn ended up playing 4 ranked teams to both of there 3 stil to much for that little brain! 
they still played the better teams
they still played the better teams
Posted on 7/27/19 at 4:58 pm to Pauldingtiger
Can't complain though when you refused to play an AQ OOC. 
Posted on 7/27/19 at 5:35 pm to BranchDawg
quote:
What you’re really arguing is that national championships shouldn’t even exist
That's not what I'm arguing. I'm simply arguing that the system we have now is really no better than the system we've had since the 30s. People seem to think that things are soooo much better now that we have a playoff, but the same subjectivity still exists. We have simply gone from people picking one team, to people picking two teams, to people picking four teams.
At least back in the days of the poll era there was some level of excitement to just about all of the major bowls. You had four or five games that could potentially decide the national championship in a given post-season, giving all of those games some amount of relevance. You also didn't have anywhere near as many bowls back then, which made making the post-season a reward for a good season. Nowadays you can have a losing record and still play in a bowl. That's freaking retarded.
In 1977, there were a mere 13 bowl games. This year there will be 40.
To truly make the post-season relevant and crown a true national champion, there must a massive reformation in the FBS ranks. In 2019, there will be 130 teams competing at the FBS level. That's way too many. That number should be reduced to the 64 members of the P5 conferences. The rest of them should be thrown into their own subdivision - call it FBS-II or something - so the big boys can actually compete against relevant competition every single week.
Reduce the regular season from 12 games to 11. Nine of those games will be against in-conference opponents while the other two will be against other non-conference P5 opponents. Each conference will have its own championship game and the winner of said game will get an automatic bid to an 8-team CFB Playoff. That will leave room for three at-large teams.
The playoff games will rotate among the major bowl games. The Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl will have a permanent playoff game status while the other two playoff games will rotate between the Orange, Fiesta, Cotton, and Peach. The Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl will be played on January 1 while the other two playoff games will be played on January 2. Two weeks later, on a Saturday night, the national championship game will be played at a neutral site that is bid out beforehand.
As I said, the Orange Bowl, Fiesta Bowl, Cotton Bowl, and Peach Bowl will all rotate amongst themselves for the last two playoff games. When they aren't a part of the playoffs, they will be the bedrock for a slate of post-season bowl games to reward those teams that were good, but not quite good enough to get into the playoffs. These games would be played between December 26 and January 1 featuring the very best college football has to offer outside those teams that made the playoffs.
So here's an example post-season for this hypothetical format:
Playoffs
January 1
Rose Bowl
Sugar Bowl
January 2
Orange Bowl
Fiesta Bowl
Post-Season Bowls (December 26-31)
Cotton Bowl
Peach Bowl
Holiday Bowl
Sun Bowl
Liberty Bowl
Citrus Bowl
Outback Bowl
Gator Bowl
Posted on 7/27/19 at 5:36 pm to deltaland
quote:
Checks out. Much easier to be awarded a natty by a poll than actually having to win it on the field
quote:
MSU fan
How would you know?
Posted on 7/27/19 at 5:55 pm to RatRodDawg
USC also only barely beat that same Va Tech team that you are ragging on AU for barely beating that season
Posted on 7/27/19 at 6:11 pm to Ross
quote:
USC also only barely beat that same Va Tech team that you are ragging on AU for barely beating that season
They won by 11 points.
Posted on 7/27/19 at 6:13 pm to RollTide1987
You watch the game brah?
One point game going into the 4th Q. One score game with one minute to go.
One point game going into the 4th Q. One score game with one minute to go.
This post was edited on 7/27/19 at 6:15 pm
Posted on 7/27/19 at 6:21 pm to Ross
quote:
You watch the game brah?
One point game going into the 4th Q. One score game with one minute to go.
Isn't football a four-quarter game? USC pulled away because they were the better team.
This post was edited on 7/27/19 at 6:22 pm
Posted on 7/27/19 at 6:28 pm to RollTide1987
Don’t think I ever argued USC wasn’t the better team but okay.
Posted on 7/27/19 at 6:45 pm to Ross
quote:
Don’t think I ever argued USC wasn’t the better team but okay.
You said USC barely won, ignoring the fact that USC won by two scores. Whether or not they scored a cheap field goal with a minute left doesn't change the fact that USC won by 11 points. They owned the second half and dominated for much of the fourth quarter.
Posted on 7/27/19 at 6:51 pm to RollTide1987
Okay, didn’t realize I was dealing with the semantics police.
They struggled for the entire game with Virginia Tech at home, so throwing shade at Auburn for playing them close at a neutral site is a ridiculous sentiment.
Better?
FWIW, there is no way you did anything but check out the box score because if you actually ever did watch that game you’d never use the word “dominated” to describe any part of it.
They struggled for the entire game with Virginia Tech at home, so throwing shade at Auburn for playing them close at a neutral site is a ridiculous sentiment.
Better?
FWIW, there is no way you did anything but check out the box score because if you actually ever did watch that game you’d never use the word “dominated” to describe any part of it.
This post was edited on 7/28/19 at 9:14 am
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News