|
Post by Jedi-El of Tomorrow on Dec 7, 2015 18:41:48 GMT -5
Florida/Oklahoma - Correct for what the circumstances were. Yeah that was a year they did as best as they could. Not even a 4 team playoff would have fixed it. Florida was the obvious choice, but you had the Big 12 South tie (3 teams each with 1 loss, and each of those 3 went 1-1 against each other), an undefeated Utah, a 1 loss USC, and a 1 loss Penn State. The BCS got it right that year, as best as they could.
|
|
|
Post by OGBoardPoster2005 on Dec 7, 2015 18:58:05 GMT -5
Florida/Oklahoma - Correct for what the circumstances were. Yeah that was a year they did as best as they could. Not even a 4 team playoff would have fixed it. Florida was the obvious choice, but you had the Big 12 South tie (3 teams each with 1 loss, and each of those 3 went 1-1 against each other), an undefeated Utah, a 1 loss USC, and a 1 loss Penn State. The BCS got it right that year, as best as they could. Conference Championship Games helped UF and OU. Its easy with UF, they beat the #1 team in the country. The polls helped OU get to the Big XII title game. You could've argued Texas was better but they didn't win the division. USC losing to Oregon State and Penn State losing to Iowa hurt them both.
|
|
ICBM
King Koopa
Didn't know we did status updates here now
Posts: 12,288
|
Post by ICBM on Dec 7, 2015 22:36:49 GMT -5
Tennessee/Florida State - Correct FSU/Va. Tech - Correct Oklahoma/FSU - Incorrect; should have been Oklahoma/Washington Miami/Nebraska - Incorrect; should have been Miami/Oregon Miami/Ohio State - Correct LSU/Oklahoma - Incorrect; should have been LSU/USC USC/Oklahoma - Hard to say. A four team playoff with these two, Auburn and Utah would have been more appropriate. USC/Texas - Correct Ohio State/Florida - Correct LSU/Ohio State - Correct Florida/Oklahoma - Correct for what the circumstances were. Alabama/Texas - Hard to say. A four team playoff with these two, TCU and Boise would have been better. Auburn/Oregon - Correct LSU/Alabama - Incorrect; should have been LSU/Oklahoma State Alabama/Notre Dame - Correct Florida State/Auburn - Correct LSU/Bama vs LSU Okie Lite; how do you forgive Oklahoma state for Clemsoning against Iowas State? Alabama lost by an FG in OT vs the best team in America. I've always been fine with that game. I appreciate it more BC we got a playoff BC of it
|
|
|
Post by OGBoardPoster2005 on Dec 7, 2015 23:53:25 GMT -5
Tennessee/Florida State - Correct FSU/Va. Tech - Correct Oklahoma/FSU - Incorrect; should have been Oklahoma/Washington Miami/Nebraska - Incorrect; should have been Miami/Oregon Miami/Ohio State - Correct LSU/Oklahoma - Incorrect; should have been LSU/USC USC/Oklahoma - Hard to say. A four team playoff with these two, Auburn and Utah would have been more appropriate. USC/Texas - Correct Ohio State/Florida - Correct LSU/Ohio State - Correct Florida/Oklahoma - Correct for what the circumstances were. Alabama/Texas - Hard to say. A four team playoff with these two, TCU and Boise would have been better. Auburn/Oregon - Correct LSU/Alabama - Incorrect; should have been LSU/Oklahoma State Alabama/Notre Dame - Correct Florida State/Auburn - Correct LSU/Bama vs LSU Okie Lite; how do you forgive Oklahoma state for Clemsoning against Iowas State? Alabama lost by an FG in OT vs the best team in America. I've always been fine with that game. I appreciate it more BC we got a playoff BC of it Bama had their chance, they avoided playing Georgia bc of losing that game. Okie State blew out a Top 15 oklahoma team a week later.
|
|
Johnny Flamingo
Hank Scorpio
Killing the business one post at a time
Posts: 6,477
|
Post by Johnny Flamingo on Dec 8, 2015 0:25:39 GMT -5
LSU/Bama were the two best teams. One can argue about whether there should've been a rematch or not, but they were the best that year. I don't agree to that. Based on some people's perception they were but perception is not always reality. Last year many people were saying that the SEC should possible have 2 teams in the playoffs because the SEC West was the greatest division in college football history. On the same token many of those same people said Ohio State was horrible. Fast forward to after the bowls when Ohio State won the title convincingly, the Big Ten came out looking quite good and the SEC West was horribly exposed. Maybe LSU and Bama were the two best teams but there is no way to know without them playing someone else. The system that year was set up so that the SEC couldn't lose and it was an absolute sham of a national title game.
|
|
|
Post by Jedi-El of Tomorrow on Dec 8, 2015 1:37:01 GMT -5
Tennessee/Florida State - Correct FSU/Va. Tech - Correct Oklahoma/FSU - Incorrect; should have been Oklahoma/Washington Miami/Nebraska - Incorrect; should have been Miami/Oregon Miami/Ohio State - Correct LSU/Oklahoma - Incorrect; should have been LSU/USC USC/Oklahoma - Hard to say. A four team playoff with these two, Auburn and Utah would have been more appropriate. USC/Texas - Correct Ohio State/Florida - Correct LSU/Ohio State - Correct Florida/Oklahoma - Correct for what the circumstances were. Alabama/Texas - Hard to say. A four team playoff with these two, TCU and Boise would have been better. Auburn/Oregon - Correct LSU/Alabama - Incorrect; should have been LSU/Oklahoma State Alabama/Notre Dame - Correct Florida State/Auburn - Correct LSU/Bama vs LSU Okie Lite; how do you forgive Oklahoma state for Clemsoning against Iowas State? Alabama lost by an FG in OT vs the best team in America. I've always been fine with that game. I appreciate it more BC we got a playoff BC of it Going into the National Championship Game, Bama beat 5 teams with winning records and 1 ranked team. Oklahoma State on the other hand beat 7 teams with winning records, and 3 ranked teams.
|
|
Unocal 76
King Koopa
Providing The Finest Oil
Posts: 12,687
|
Post by Unocal 76 on Dec 8, 2015 1:40:54 GMT -5
My problem with LSU/Bama is that we just acted as if they were THE only two teams that year.
Bama did not earn the right to be one of the two best teams- they lost to LSU, and they beat up on crappy offenses.
Since then, Alabama has been THE only team that gets the good lost treatment.
Only in 2009 did they ever make it to the title game undefeated.
|
|
sfvega
Grimlock
Posts: 13,561
Member is Online
|
Post by sfvega on Dec 8, 2015 3:07:29 GMT -5
the biggest problem with such a small sample size is with just 2 teams it is impossible to say what was right with 4 teams it is impossible to say with the size of college football you need 16 teams to have a system that insures you don't get a mess up. I know people don't want that as they want the regular season to have lots of meaningless games with most teams being eliminated before the season even starts. Given that BCS system and the current one the idea that at any time we knew who the best college team was at the end of the season is a joke because of how many teams there are and how few of them play against each other. You don't NEED 16 teams. That's completely subjective for one. And also, just in this topic the arguments are made for only a handful of teams every year. No one in here is arguing that Western Kentucky or Ole Miss needs to be involved in the playoff, so why do we NEED that many teams? 4 is good. The cream of the crop and it doesn't add a ton of games on the end. 6 or 8 would be inoffensive. Anything larger than that just waters things down too much. If you added Iowa and Stanford in there this year, I don't think there would be an outcry. But make an argument for changing the playoff format for every single conference champion. Make an argument for a 3-loss team who didn't make a conference championship game. There isn't one.
|
|
Reflecto
Hank Scorpio
The Sorceress' Knight
Posts: 6,847
|
Post by Reflecto on Dec 8, 2015 3:27:15 GMT -5
the biggest problem with such a small sample size is with just 2 teams it is impossible to say what was right with 4 teams it is impossible to say with the size of college football you need 16 teams to have a system that insures you don't get a mess up. I know people don't want that as they want the regular season to have lots of meaningless games with most teams being eliminated before the season even starts. Given that BCS system and the current one the idea that at any time we knew who the best college team was at the end of the season is a joke because of how many teams there are and how few of them play against each other. You don't NEED 16 teams. That's completely subjective for one. And also, just in this topic the arguments are made for only a handful of teams every year. No one in here is arguing that Western Kentucky or Ole Miss needs to be involved in the playoff, so why do we NEED that many teams? 4 is good. The cream of the crop and it doesn't add a ton of games on the end. 6 or 8 would be inoffensive. Anything larger than that just waters things down too much. If you added Iowa and Stanford in there this year, I don't think there would be an outcry. But make an argument for changing the playoff format for every single conference champion. Make an argument for a 3-loss team who didn't make a conference championship game. There isn't one. The answer for every single conference champion is, and always has been, March Madness. Part of the show that makes it so great, and made people NEED a BCS playoff (and requiring at least one Other Five school be guaranteed to make it to a New Year's bowl as well), was that concept of some smaller school pulling off a miracle against a big team that makes the NCAA tournament so great. If you go up to a 16 team tournament, part of it would have to include a guarantee every single conference champion qualifies. It's likely those other six spots will be going to six wild cards and the top six, plus CCGs give the schools a play-in game beforehand (so the majority of the spots do go to the best anyway with those others. Yeah- Western Kentucky, Bowling Green and Arkansas State would probably get destroyed by Clemson, Alabama, and Michigan State in the first round as 14-16 seeds. But as conference champions, they'd deserve a chance to PLAY FOR the title. Last year, people thought Ohio State didn't deserve to make it in as the 4-seed and they won the title. Maybe one of those teams wouldn't make it, but there'd always be a one in a million chance they pull off the huge upset- and even if they inevitably lose in the round of 8, the tournament still is solidified forever.
|
|
sfvega
Grimlock
Posts: 13,561
Member is Online
|
Post by sfvega on Dec 8, 2015 5:49:54 GMT -5
The answer for every single conference champion is, and always has been, March Madness. Part of the show that makes it so great, and made people NEED a BCS playoff (and requiring at least one Other Five school be guaranteed to make it to a New Year's bowl as well), was that concept of some smaller school pulling off a miracle against a big team that makes the NCAA tournament so great. If you go up to a 16 team tournament, part of it would have to include a guarantee every single conference champion qualifies. It's likely those other six spots will be going to six wild cards and the top six, plus CCGs give the schools a play-in game beforehand (so the majority of the spots do go to the best anyway with those others. Yeah- Western Kentucky, Bowling Green and Arkansas State would probably get destroyed by Clemson, Alabama, and Michigan State in the first round as 14-16 seeds. But as conference champions, they'd deserve a chance to PLAY FOR the title. Last year, people thought Ohio State didn't deserve to make it in as the 4-seed and they won the title. Maybe one of those teams wouldn't make it, but there'd always be a one in a million chance they pull off the huge upset- and even if they inevitably lose in the round of 8, the tournament still is solidified forever. First off, the answer for college BASKETBALL is March Madness. The two sports are completely different. College basketball has a long, completely meaningless regular season. College football has a short, intense regular season. There's no reason that college football needs to be like college basketball. And honestly, their post-seasons couldn't be more opposite. March Madness is awesome for casual fans the first two weeks because there's game on top of games on top of games. You have to win 4 games in 9-10 days, and OF COURSE there's going to be upsets. But also, there are tons of games. So the blowouts get glossed over, especially the first 2 days, just because of the gross number of games. There's always going to be close ones with 32 games all jammed together. In football, you're talking 8 games then a week, then 4 games. You're not recreating this lightning in a bottle of March Madness that has 2-3 close finishes together every 2-3 hours which is excitement of it. It's not the excitement of "Oh man, #5 Cincy against #12 Texas. What a barn burner that's gonna be!" And I like college basketball more than most. But half these people don't care about these match-ups because SOME match-up is going to be entertaining. Football is the opposite. It's all about the match-ups. They're 10x more important in football, especially given there has to be a week between the games. College basketball sells the tournament. College football sells the teams. How many times do people turn on the 2nd round of the tournament that Saturday and not even know who is playing anymore or the match-ups? Sure, Duke and Kentucky etc etc draw. But the tournament itself is the main draw. College football has a better draw in these powerhouse programs in big time bowl games. Why would they water down their post-season just to try and be more like basketball? Especially as it pertains to the big money side of it. On the conference champs, when has winning your conference in itself ever earned you a right to play for the championship? Never. Why should it now? There's ALWAYS down conferences. Why expand a good system just to make sure you include these also-rans? San Diego St just won the MWC. And in addition to their bad losses to average, barely bowl-eligible teams like Penn St and Cal, and their noteworthy loss to South Alabama, they don't have any good wins. They aren't ranked. They beat Air Force. Cool. Why should they be included? Because March Madness? Because there could be upsets? The small chance of upset doesn't cede credibility. Ole Miss already beat the arguable favorite in the playoff. That doesn't mean they should be in the playoff. If a smaller conference team does make a lot of noise and beat quality opponents, then they put the pressure on the committee to include them. A team like Utah the year they were really good would probably make this playoff system. So it's not about those worthy teams not getting a look, and ESPECIALLY not in a 6-8 team playoff. So what is the credible argument for expanding past that? To include mediocre conference champions that occur every single year?
|
|
Reflecto
Hank Scorpio
The Sorceress' Knight
Posts: 6,847
|
Post by Reflecto on Dec 8, 2015 6:10:18 GMT -5
First off, the answer for college BASKETBALL is March Madness. The two sports are completely different. College basketball has a long, completely meaningless regular season. College football has a short, intense regular season. There's no reason that college football needs to be like college basketball. And honestly, their post-seasons couldn't be more opposite. March Madness is awesome for casual fans the first two weeks because there's game on top of games on top of games. You have to win 4 games in 9-10 days, and OF COURSE there's going to be upsets. But also, there are tons of games. So the blowouts get glossed over, especially the first 2 days, just because of the gross number of games. There's always going to be close ones with 32 games all jammed together. In football, you're talking 8 games then a week, then 4 games. You're not recreating this lightning in a bottle of March Madness that has 2-3 close finishes together every 2-3 hours which is excitement of it. It's not the excitement of "Oh man, #5 Cincy against #12 Texas. What a barn burner that's gonna be!" And I like college basketball more than most. But half these people don't care about these match-ups because SOME match-up is going to be entertaining. Football is the opposite. It's all about the match-ups. They're 10x more important in football, especially given there has to be a week between the games. College basketball sells the tournament. College football sells the teams. How many times do people turn on the 2nd round of the tournament that Saturday and not even know who is playing anymore or the match-ups? Sure, Duke and Kentucky etc etc draw. But the tournament itself is the main draw. College football has a better draw in these powerhouse programs in big time bowl games. Why would they water down their post-season just to try and be more like basketball? Especially as it pertains to the big money side of it. On the conference champs, when has winning your conference in itself ever earned you a right to play for the championship? Never. Why should it now? There's ALWAYS down conferences. Why expand a good system just to make sure you include these also-rans? San Diego St just won the MWC. And in addition to their bad losses to average, barely bowl-eligible teams like Penn St and Cal, and their noteworthy loss to South Alabama, they don't have any good wins. They aren't ranked. They beat Air Force. Cool. Why should they be included? Because March Madness? Because there could be upsets? The small chance of upset doesn't cede credibility. Ole Miss already beat the arguable favorite in the playoff. That doesn't mean they should be in the playoff. If a smaller conference team does make a lot of noise and beat quality opponents, then they put the pressure on the committee to include them. A team like Utah the year they were really good would probably make this playoff system. So it's not about those worthy teams not getting a look, and ESPECIALLY not in a 6-8 team playoff. So what is the credible argument for expanding past that? To include mediocre conference champions that occur every single year? Because we've SEEN how the BCS committee is beforehand. Yes, San Diego St, or any of those matches, should be in- because quite frankly, the other side is just as bad. A team like Utah the year they were really good, or one of those winless teams? No. No, they WOULDN'T get a look in a 6-8 team tournament unless they were forced to. Look at Houston this year, or any other. The New Year's bowls have Houston in one of the bowls because the contract required them to give a token New Year's Bowl appearance to an Other Five team. During the playoff hunt, it's clear that only the "The BCS committee MUST consider conference champions" clause is the only thing keeping them. Last year, Ohio State won the title- but everyone knows if that conference champion clause wasn't in there, the BCS would have put four teams from the same SEC division in the playoff instead. Screw "Other Five" conference teams getting in- a non-conference champ clause would have them sigh and MAYBE put Clemson in, as the four seed, with three SEC teams ahead of them...and that's if they aren't convinced to put whichever one of Ole Miss or Georgia in over Clemson instead. Yeah, maybe some of the lesser conferences would have no chance- but I'd rather force the BCS committee to put San Diego State in as a 16 seed with three losses than see the BCS committee put South Carolina with 9 losses as a 14 seed, and maybe put the top two conference champs in at 15- 16..
|
|
Push R Truth
Patti Mayonnaise
Unique and Special Snowflake, and a pants-less heathen.
Perpetually Constipated
Posts: 39,281
|
Post by Push R Truth on Dec 8, 2015 8:30:10 GMT -5
Texas vs USC was about the biggest home-run you could have in the BCS. Obvious powerhouses that had risen above the rest meet on the neutral field and slug it out in an epic game.
After that matchup, it just didn't feel right most of the time.
|
|
sfvega
Grimlock
Posts: 13,561
Member is Online
|
Post by sfvega on Dec 8, 2015 16:00:10 GMT -5
Because we've SEEN how the BCS committee is beforehand. Yes, San Diego St, or any of those matches, should be in- because quite frankly, the other side is just as bad. That's a Non sequitur. You're not telling me why SDSU should get in, you're just saying that you don't like the system now. A team like Utah the year they were really good, or one of those winless teams? No. No, they WOULDN'T get a look in a 6-8 team tournament unless they were forced to. Actually, both years Utah went undefeated, they went into the bowl games ranked 6th in the BCS. The Boise St team that went undefeated and needed a miracle comeback to beat an OU team without Adrian Peterson was ranked 8th in the BCS. Those are the main schools that had a good argument to be in a tournament for a national champion, and they're in by the BCS ranking between 6-8. So you're wrong entirely about Utah not getting a look, and again we're back at why the tournament should be anything over 8. Look at Houston this year, or any other. The New Year's bowls have Houston in one of the bowls because the contract required them to give a token New Year's Bowl appearance to an Other Five team. During the playoff hunt, it's clear that only the "The BCS committee MUST consider conference champions" clause is the only thing keeping them. Houston lost to a .500 team late in the season and their best win was against Navy. Show me people arguing for this team to get in. The argument is always to expand to 16, mainly not from hardcore CFB fans, and it's always to include every conference champ, and they never make any attempt at an argument for including the also-rans that would get in every year. It's lazy. Last year, Ohio State won the title- but everyone knows if that conference champion clause wasn't in there, the BCS would have put four teams from the same SEC division in the playoff instead. Screw "Other Five" conference teams getting in- a non-conference champ clause would have them sigh and MAYBE put Clemson in, as the four seed, with three SEC teams ahead of them...and that's if they aren't convinced to put whichever one of Ole Miss or Georgia in over Clemson instead. Do you even know what those SEC teams were ranked in the BCS before the bowl games last year? Or this year? Yeah, maybe some of the lesser conferences would have no chance- but I'd rather force the BCS committee to put San Diego State in as a 16 seed with three losses than see the BCS committee put South Carolina with 9 losses as a 14 seed, and maybe put the top two conference champs in at 15- 16.. BOTH of those sound like terrible ideas. Which is why expanding that far doesn't seem like it should happen at all.
|
|
The_Don_Mecha
Mephisto
Hey sexy mama, wanna kill all humans?
Posts: 668
|
Post by The_Don_Mecha on Dec 8, 2015 16:25:03 GMT -5
College Football is limited by the maximum number of games they can play per season, so I'm thankful that we're even getting an entertaining playoff system now.
Oh, and on topic, they did get the OSU-Miami game absolutely correct, even though I hated the outcome. It was a really good game, probably #3 in the BCS era on the list (Behind Texas-USC and Auburn-Florida St.).
|
|