Started By
Message
re: I keep seeing the argument for "the 4 best teams should be in the playoff"
Posted on 12/1/16 at 7:24 pm to Master of Sinanju
Posted on 12/1/16 at 7:24 pm to Master of Sinanju
quote:
You'd leave Ohio St out?
Absolutely!
And they may be the best team in he big10, however they haven't earned jack.
Div tile nope
Conf title nope
Head to Head with PSU nope.
Why should they get it , cause they look getting off the bus, so does half the teams in the SEC, but they don't deserve it either.
Until you have at large spots, then only champions should play for a national title.
This whole thing is being spun by ESPN and ratings.
If Indiana was in OSU spot, and OSU was in PSU spot, the dialogue would be different, I promise you.
The perfect solution is 5 conf champ games, advancing with 3 at large.
That way it allows the sacred few institutions to get their mulligan but not have to actually win anything and it rewards those who go out and win something. Oh and those at large have to play on the road in the playoffs
This post was edited on 12/1/16 at 7:25 pm
0
Posted on 12/1/16 at 8:07 pm to ReauxlTide222
quote:
Michigan lost the last game of the season and still are in the top 5 and in the discussion? Has that ever happened before?
Yes. In 2001, Nebraska lost the Big12CG to Colorado 36-62 and then played Miami in the BCSNCG.
In 2003, Oklahoma lost the Big12CG to Kansas State 7-35 and then played LSU in the BCSNCG. This post was edited on 12/1/16 at 8:09 pm
Posted on 12/1/16 at 8:19 pm to Weagle25
If it was entirely about the "most deserved" instead of the "best", then all the big schools might as well schedule nothing but cupcakes for their OOC schedule. Those marquee matchups should count for something, IMO anyway.
8 teams is a fair number: it'd reward ALL the conference champions who won it on the field, and a few at-larges for a little wiggle room. The OOC games would still carry weight, and more teams would have something to play for, so the buzz of the regular season would remain intact.
8 teams is a fair number: it'd reward ALL the conference champions who won it on the field, and a few at-larges for a little wiggle room. The OOC games would still carry weight, and more teams would have something to play for, so the buzz of the regular season would remain intact.
Posted on 12/1/16 at 8:23 pm to Weagle25
BCS system playoff is the only true legit outcome here. There will be some crazy years but it's the most full proof and least biased option.
Posted on 12/1/16 at 8:26 pm to vandelay industries
quote:
If it was entirely about the "most deserved" instead of the "best", then all the big schools might as well schedule nothing but cupcakes for their OOC schedule. Those marquee matchups should count for something, IMO anyway.
Not neccesarily. If you went 4 teams and only let conference champs in, there would be enough worry that your conference might not make it in
Personally I'd go 6. Power 5 champs and one group of five champ. Force everybody to play a OOC Power 5 like the SEC already does
Posted on 12/1/16 at 8:27 pm to RBWilliams8
Committee is light years ahead of the BCS
This post was edited on 12/1/16 at 8:33 pm
Posted on 12/1/16 at 8:31 pm to RBWilliams8
quote:
BCS system playoff is the ...least biased option.
Actually a tournament of champions is the least biased. It's objective.
I don't know why anyone should have to vote on anything, that just seems dumb for a playoff - and rife with bias.
Posted on 12/1/16 at 8:33 pm to ALA2262
Didn't Nebraska get blown out at the end of the 2001 season?
Six teams ended ahead of them in the final polls right?
Sounds like the last season loss should have dropped them more.
Why did USC get left out in 2003? I cannot remember who they lost to but seem to remember people blasting the computer formula that picked the top two.
It is all a game of what ifs, but maybe conference championships should have counted more in matching up the top two?
Six teams ended ahead of them in the final polls right?
Sounds like the last season loss should have dropped them more.
Why did USC get left out in 2003? I cannot remember who they lost to but seem to remember people blasting the computer formula that picked the top two.
It is all a game of what ifs, but maybe conference championships should have counted more in matching up the top two?
Posted on 12/1/16 at 8:40 pm to Weagle25
quote:
Not neccesarily. If you went 4 teams and only let conference champs in, there would be enough worry that your conference might not make it in
But then fate would be at the hands of a committee, and that "eyeball test" subjectivity comes into play. You gotta give 'em all a shot IMO.
Posted on 12/1/16 at 8:42 pm to vandelay industries
quote:
But then fate would be at the hands of a committee, and that "eyeball test" subjectivity comes into play. You gotta give 'em all a shot IMO.
You're misunderstanding eye ball test. Looking at who you beat, who you lost to is not the eyeball test
The only way you're going to have significant OOC games is with that little bit of subjectivity. So you have to pick which one of those you want.
This post was edited on 12/1/16 at 8:44 pm
Posted on 12/1/16 at 8:45 pm to Weagle25
Winning some conferences is not the same as others.
Conference championship by no means means you are better than 3rd place team in another conference.
This why the field has to be expanded.
The bcs was a fine system. No idea why we went to this bullshite.
Conference championship by no means means you are better than 3rd place team in another conference.
This why the field has to be expanded.
The bcs was a fine system. No idea why we went to this bullshite.
Posted on 12/1/16 at 8:47 pm to Weagle25
I want all the P5 champs to be rewarded, and I want a few wild-cards too, so I guess I'm stuck in the middle, lol
Posted on 12/1/16 at 8:49 pm to vandelay industries
You're probably 5 conference champs and 3 at larges then. Too much subjectivity for me.
This post was edited on 12/1/16 at 8:50 pm
Posted on 12/1/16 at 8:52 pm to TouchdownTony
quote:
Winning some conferences is not the same as others.
Conference championship by no means means you are better than 3rd place team in another conference.
That's irrelevant though.
If you were not the best in your conference, then why would you have a shot to be the best in the nation?
This post was edited on 12/1/16 at 8:53 pm
Posted on 12/1/16 at 8:53 pm to vandelay industries
Plus, a #1 vs. #8 matchup in the regular season would be a Game Of The Week, so a 1-8 playoff matchup won't leave a bad taste in anyone's mouths....
This post was edited on 12/1/16 at 8:55 pm
Posted on 12/1/16 at 9:02 pm to TouchdownTony
quote:
Conference championship by no means means you are better than 3rd place team in another conference.
To be fair here, I think the issue is that there are two teams who did not win in their own conference who might get in over the winner of their own conference.
Michigan even being in the debate is baffling to me. They will have the same record as whoever their conference champion is.
Ohio State seems to have a stronger argument...
but frick Ohio State.
Posted on 12/1/16 at 9:04 pm to Weagle25
quote:
quit with the "best 4 teams should get in" argument.
No. That's exactly who should be in a 4 team playoff.
Posted on 12/1/16 at 9:52 pm to skirpnasty
quote:this is so fricking stupid. Id rather go back to the bcs than a 16 team playoff
16 team playoff.
Posted on 12/1/16 at 10:13 pm to Weagle25
quote:
So you have Western Michigan in your playoff?
I mean there is reason
I don't think saying if you only play MAC teams, and the bottom 2 teams in the Big 10 then maybe you don't deserve to be in
But OSu has one of the best records, has beaten other ranked teams.
This isn't an eye ball test. tOSU has the resume.
Posted on 12/2/16 at 5:02 am to SammyTiger
They do have a great record.
I just keep thinking that the pundants would not be spinning this hard if their name was Indiana, Maryland, or Rutgers. It opens Pandora's box that reward a team that has not really achieved anything on the field, your giving them a mulligan, IMO.
I just keep thinking that the pundants would not be spinning this hard if their name was Indiana, Maryland, or Rutgers. It opens Pandora's box that reward a team that has not really achieved anything on the field, your giving them a mulligan, IMO.
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News