# us One is dead - College football is getting a 4 team playoff



## WinterBorn (Jun 22, 2012)

Now I think an 8 team playoff would be mch better, but at least the BCS system is on its way out and the Plus One would have just been an extension of that.

Let the best teams play and give us a real champion.


----------



## Truthseeker420 (Jun 24, 2012)

Great so we will get to see more bowl games in the south with 3 SEC teams and Oklahomo.


----------



## Truthseeker420 (Jun 24, 2012)

bump


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 24, 2012)

Truthseeker420 said:


> Great so we will get to see more bowl games in the south with 3 SEC teams and Oklahomo.



That is not because of any bias.  We just have the best teams.

Maybe USC will do something this year.  They seem the likely candidate to lose the National Championship game in 2013.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 24, 2012)

Four is better than two

Let's let it run for a few years and see how it goes. Now we actually get three games that mean something instead of one

The rest of the bowl games are just exhibition games and have no real meaning


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 24, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Four is better than two
> 
> Let's let it run for a few years and see how it goes. Now we actually get three games that mean something instead of one
> 
> The rest of the bowl games are just exhibition games and have no real meaning



The other bowl games haven't had an effect on selecting the national champion since the BCS came in to being.  But they make lots of money and the fans love them.  So they are not really meaningless.  Watching Bama destroy Michigan State at the end of the 2010 season was great! Watching MS State annialate Michigan was fun too.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 24, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Four is better than two
> ...



Seeing the third place team from the SEC play the fourth place team from the Pac 10 is meaningless. With the realignment in the conferences, they are becoming meaningless also


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 24, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Meaningless to everyone but the few hundred thousand fans.  Hell, there are only a handful of teams who really have a shot at winning the national championship.  The rest are just playing for the fans, the traditions and to try and win THAT game.

But at least with the new system we will have 4 teams in the running after the regular season and the conference championships.

More good games to watch.


----------



## samjones (Jun 24, 2012)

Truthseeker420 said:


> Great so we will get to see more bowl games in the south with 3 SEC teams and Oklahomo.



We'll see what they come up with on Tuesday.  I would strongly favor allowing only one team per conference.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 24, 2012)

samjones said:


> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> > Great so we will get to see more bowl games in the south with 3 SEC teams and Oklahomo.
> ...



Fuck the conferences....take the top four teams


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 24, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> samjones said:
> 
> 
> > Truthseeker420 said:
> ...



That is exactly right.  If you want a true national champion, have the 4 best teams play.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 24, 2012)

samjones said:


> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> > Great so we will get to see more bowl games in the south with 3 SEC teams and Oklahomo.
> ...



That would not give you a true champion decided on the field.

As an example, for the 2011 season, a 4 team playoff of the highest ranked conference champions, you would have had LSU, OK State, Oregon and Wisconsin.

That would be a playoff between the #1,#3, #5, and #10 ranked teams.  That isn't giving you a champion.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 24, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> samjones said:
> 
> 
> > Truthseeker420 said:
> ...



I think he means one conference can't have two teams out of four


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 24, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > samjones said:
> ...



Either way it means you don't have the 4 best teams playing.   I know people were pissed about the LSU/Alabama rematch.  But the BCS was set up to pit the two best teams against each other for the championship.  Thats the way ot felll


----------



## samjones (Jun 25, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> samjones said:
> 
> 
> > Truthseeker420 said:
> ...



Funny, that isn't the way the major professional leagues do it.

The NFL even honors the best teams in the conferences and in the divisions.  It's format does not guarantee the 4th best team in the NFL entry to the 12 team playoff and indeed, from time to time we see a 10-6 team not go.

The importance of recognizing the major conference in college football is even more pronounced, because while an NFL team will play about one third of its games against non-conference opponents and another third against non-division opponents, college football teams play a few non-conference games at the beginning of the year and they tend to pick patsy opponents (many exceptions apply).

With so little cross-power-5 conference competition I would think that an enlightened fan would be concerned with the possibility of a false economy both in the computer rankings and in the sportswriters/coaches polls.  What if that team that's running the table in the Pac-12 isn't really all that good?

The dearth of cross-conference competition makes it all the more important that as many conference as possible are represented in the the playoffs, dont' you think?

Most importantly the BCS system of rankings relies exclusively on polls and computer rankings.  Both of the above punish a team heavily for recent losses. The current and historic state of college football is that teams tend to move their big games to the end of the season - the final game and more recently the conference playoff.  Losing either of those gamses sets up a situation where a deserving team doesn't get their chance at the title.  More importantly losing the conference title game - according to the BCS ranking system, would likely set up the absurd situtation where a team risks not being able to play for the national championship *BECAUSE* they won their conference division.  

For example, under a system where BCS rankings where favored over conference standings, if LSU had lost to Georgia in the SEC championship game that they qualified for by beating Alabama then they would not likely have qualified for the same 4 team playoff that Alabama would certainly have qualified for because they didn't have to face Georgia in the GeorgiaDome.

PS> Georgia wouldn't have gone either.

Like I say, this college football playoff thing takes thought.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 25, 2012)

samjones said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > samjones said:
> ...



The NFL has a twelve team playoff structure for a 32 team league
NCAA is looking to pick a four team playoff for over a hundred Div 1 teams

With only four teams , you need to be sure you make a best effort to pick the top 4 most deserving

Having #1, #3, #5 and #6 does not pass muster


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 25, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> Now I think an 8 team playoff would be mch better, but at least the BCS system is on its way out and the Plus One would have just been an extension of that.
> 
> Let the best teams play and give us a real champion.


Best eight teams selected after the last January 1 bowl game.
Three week play-off starting...?
Championship game played the day before the Super Bowl??


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 25, 2012)

samjones said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > samjones said:
> ...



There are some big differences between the NFL and the NCAA.

First, with only 32 teams in the NFL, they have an 8 team playoff syste,

The NCAA has 126 teams and now a 4 team playoff system.  That alone forces there to be some sort of poll to determine who gets into the playoffs.

As for the LSU losing to GA scenario, you are absolutely correct and that would have been the right way to do it.  In order to determine rankings, the strength of schedule must be factored in, along with who they lost to and how (if they have lost games).   Georgia had 2 losses on their record when they played LSU.  That would make LSU's loss to them much worse than Bama's single loss to the #1 team.  That Bama's loss was in OT is also a factor.

This is why OK State didn't play in the BCS Championship.  They lost to a team that ended the season with a losing record.  

With a 4 team playoff system, there will, by necessity, be a reliance on polls to determine who gets in.  At the end of the season (conference championships included) the top 4 teams in the polls should be in the playoffs.

While you brought up the SEC Championship, you also need to consider that the Big 12 and the Big East do not play a conference championship.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 25, 2012)

georgephillip said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Now I think an 8 team playoff would be mch better, but at least the BCS system is on its way out and the Plus One would have just been an extension of that.
> ...



Now that would be the way to determine a National Champion.


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 25, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> > Great so we will get to see more bowl games in the south with 3 SEC teams and Oklahomo.
> ...


Sam Cunningham would just like to point out how good SEC teams have become since discovering some black men really can play football.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 25, 2012)

georgephillip said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Now I think an 8 team playoff would be mch better, but at least the BCS system is on its way out and the Plus One would have just been an extension of that.
> ...



Right now Colleges play their last regular season game around Thanksgiving and take off five weeks to crown their champion in mid January

I would rather see eight team playoffs starting in mid December before he NFL playoffs start


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 25, 2012)

georgephillip said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Truthseeker420 said:
> ...



Thanks for the 45 year old news flash.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 25, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Either way works for me.  Just get us a real playoff system.  I am hoping that the 4 team playoff is just a precursor to a bigger tournament.

It would be great (for Bama fans) if we could get a bigger playoff system before Saban retires.


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 25, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


*42 years...seems like yesterday to some of us old timers*:

"He (Sam Cunningham) had a notable performance (135 yards, 2 touchdowns) against *an all-white University of Alabama football team*, as USC beat Alabama 42-21 in Birmingham on September 12, 1970. 

"His performance in the game was reportedly a factor in convincing the University of Alabama and its fans to let Coach Bear Bryant integrate Southern football. Jerry Claiborne, a former Bryant assistant, said, '*Sam Cunningham did more to integrate Alabama in 60 minutes than Martin Luther King did in 20 years*.'"

Sam Cunningham - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 25, 2012)

georgephillip said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



I guess I am missing the point about how this is relevant to the topic?   Other than an attempt to slam the reigning NCAA football champions or mock the team that has arguably done better in the last few years than any other, I don't see why bringing up a 4 decade old issue is relevant.  It was not the coaching staff at UA that was teh problem.


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 25, 2012)

You're right.
It is NOT relevant.
My bad.
Enjoy your championship and your winning streak.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 25, 2012)

georgephillip said:


> You're right.
> It is NOT relevant.
> My bad.
> Enjoy your championship and your winning streak.



Thank you.  I appreciate your integrity here.


----------



## ginscpy (Jun 25, 2012)

georgephillip said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



And that wasn't even a very good USC team.

They went 6-4-1 in both 1970 and 1971.

In 1972 - after Cunningham scored 4 TDs against against Ohio St in the Rose Bowl to cap a 12-0 season - John McKay asked:  "Is there anybody else the AP wants us to play?"


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 25, 2012)

ginscpy said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



I am not surprised you joined in on the attempted history lesson.  I guess a fan of ND has to look back to the glory days.

It must really bother you that the Crimson Tide are doing better than pretty much anyone else.  Especially since your vaunted Notre Dame has only finished the season ranked in the top 10 (AP) one time since the mid 90s.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 25, 2012)

ginscpy said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Hopefully you will realize that what happened in th 60s in football is irrelevant to the topic?


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 25, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> ginscpy said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Are we going to talk about OJ next?


----------



## kwc57 (Jun 25, 2012)

samjones said:


> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> > Great so we will get to see more bowl games in the south with 3 SEC teams and Oklahomo.
> ...



Amen!  Having a non-conference championship team playing for the national championship like last year was crazy.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 25, 2012)

kwc57 said:


> samjones said:
> 
> 
> > Truthseeker420 said:
> ...



What would have been crazy is to not allow Alabama to play because of a rule that didn't exist.

The BCS Championship criteria does not include winning a conference championship.  Otherwise, no independent team could ever play for the championship.

The BCS was put into place to put the #1 and the #2 teams in a game for the championship. It did that.


----------



## kwc57 (Jun 25, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> > samjones said:
> ...



Since the rules change from year to year, they're a moving target.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 25, 2012)

kwc57 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > kwc57 said:
> ...



But the only way to have prevented Bama from playing would have been to change the rules at the end of the season and make them apply instantly.  And that would have been seriously screwed up.

We had the #1 and the #2 teams playing.  That is what the BCS was set up to do.


----------



## ginscpy (Jun 25, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > ginscpy said:
> ...



McKay was thinking about  the Miami Dolphins.................................


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 25, 2012)

ginscpy said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



How about that Flying Wedge formation, huh?


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 25, 2012)

Ok ginscpy, I created a thread just for you to wax philisophic about glory days gone by.

Maybe you can stay on topic in other threads now?


----------



## ginscpy (Jun 25, 2012)

like when President Nixon won 48 out of 50 states in 1972 - my first vote -despite Shirley MacLame and the Hollywood liberals campaigning for McGovern.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 25, 2012)

ginscpy said:


> like when President Nixon won 48 out of 50 states in 1972 - my first vote -despite Shirley MacLame and the Hollywood liberals campaigning for McGovern.



Actually, this is just as relevant to the topic as your discussion of John McKay.

Let me know when you want to discuss the actual topic of the thread.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 25, 2012)

ginscpy said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



I thought McKay went to Tampa Bay


----------



## ginscpy (Jun 25, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> ginscpy said:
> 
> 
> > like when President Nixon won 48 out of 50 states in 1972 - my first vote -despite Shirley MacLame and the Hollywood liberals campaigning for McGovern.
> ...



McLame was on the cover of SI in 1963 - for a movie called John Goldfarb - Won't You Please Go Home"   that made fun of ND football.

That year - they hired Ara P and they went 9-1 in 1964 and John Huarte won the HT.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 25, 2012)

ginscpy said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > ginscpy said:
> ...



Ginscpy, are you aware that Bama has only lost 4 games in 3 seasons?  In 3 seasons Nick Saban has coached 36 wins, 4 loses and 2 national championships.


----------



## ginscpy (Jun 25, 2012)

ND got srewed  in both 1964 and 1993.

Hada 17-0 halftime lead  at USC in 64.  Got jobbed  by refs...   BAMA WAS the #! after thagt 

In 93 - lost on a last second FG to BC - then Florida St won the NC - even thought ND punked them 

ANCIENT HISTORY  ??????????????????

perhaps.............


----------



## samjones (Jun 25, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> The NFL has a twelve team playoff structure for a 32 team league
> NCAA is looking to pick a four team playoff for over a hundred Div 1 teams
> 
> With only four teams , you need to be sure you make a best effort to pick the top 4 most deserving
> ...



You put alot of stock in the BCS rankings.  The Coaches are too sentimental, the AP has that famous "East Coast Bias" and the computer rankings don't even agree with each other, much less reflect reality.  Even to the extent that the computer rankings work, the BCS removes MOV as a factor which totally destroys any crediibility they may have hoped to have.

Take the 4 best conference champions.  It will maximize viewership, intrique and will keep teams from playing each other 3 times in a single season.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 26, 2012)

samjones said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The NFL has a twelve team playoff structure for a 32 team league
> ...




I would agree with you if there was some parity between the conferences. But in recent years, there has been a movement towards super conferences of 16 teams. 
I hate rankings but prefer them to preventing a team from reaching the playoffs because it plays in the toughest conference


----------



## kwc57 (Jun 26, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Except that WHO was considered #2 was debateable.  I get that you can't change the rules at the end of the season.  The issue is, at the end of most seasons, they realize what a shitty system it is and change the rules for the following year......only to realize it's still a shitty system and in need of more rule changes.  Last year's championship was a prime example.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 26, 2012)

kwc57 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > kwc57 said:
> ...



Oh?   And who would you have put above Alabama?

There were only a few options.   

Ok State?  They lost to an unranked team that ended the season with a losing record

Stanford?  They lost two games, including losing to a team that LSU beat 40-27. (Oh, and they didn't win their conf either)

Oregon?   They got beat by LSU 40-27.  They were outplayed in virtually every phase of the game.

Arkansas?   Another 2 loss team, except these 2 losses were beatdowns by LSU and Bama.


That clears up the top 6 teams.  Who else should have been in the BCS Championship?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jun 26, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> Now I think an 8 team playoff would be mch better, but at least the BCS system is on its way out and the Plus One would have just been an extension of that.
> 
> Let the best teams play and give us a real champion.


*
Hey why don't we just rid ourselves of the pesky regular season altogether and have a 128 team playoff?*

oh well, college football was fun while it lasted. Unique from most other college sports, the regular season was actually more important than the post-season. Fans lived for big regular season match-up, instead of sleeping until the post-season. Soon those will all be entirely meaningless.

The lower divisions started with a 4 team playoff. Now the largest one is at 32. I've no problem with a 4 team playoff - per se - but it won't be long before IA extends to 8 - which IMO isn't *SO* bad, but the problem  is, playoff brackets always get BIGGER - not smaller - so won't be long after that till its 12. Then 16. Then 20. Then 32. After all - _*every *_ halfway decent team deserves a shot at the title?

I find that most people who desire more than  4 team playoff in CF are't the hard core, born and bred college football fans, whose daddy took them to games and whose grandfather took their daddy to games and who never knew anything different. They are the fans that became CF fans later in life and can't figure out why on Earth CF can't just be like all the other sports and have a 24775 team playoff.  They are the same CF fans that thought it was unfair undefeated Hawaii didn't have a shot at the title in 2007  - right before UGA humiliated them in the Sugar Bowl.




Guess what? *PLAY-OFFS DO NOT ALWAYS RESULT IN THE BEST TEAM WINNING THE TITLE.
*
Just ask the New England Patriots about that one.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jun 26, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...




No one in their right mind can deny that the BCS didn't work just the way it was supposed to in 2011. Undeniably - the best two teams in the nation were in that game, and the best team won.


----------



## ginscpy (Jun 26, 2012)

I likred watcheing dBillie Jean King wupp uo on Bobby Riggs in straightsets ........................


----------



## kwc57 (Jun 26, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



"The only team with a remote chance of passing Alabama at the 11th-hour is Oklahoma State should it beat 9-2 Oklahoma impressively this weekend, though it will take a near-universal about-face from the voters, who currently have the Cowboys fifth. (They're third in the overall standings thanks to the computers.) Bring up this possibility to an Alabama fan, and he or she will of course laugh in your face, pointing out first and foremost that Mike Gundy's team lost to Iowa State.

However, if this were the NCAA basketball tournament, where the committee members speak of teams' "bodies of work," they'd be comparing the following two résumés (assuming an Oklahoma State victory this weekend):

 Wins over current BCS Top 25 teams: *Oklahoma State: 5, Alabama: 2*.

 Wins over current BCS Top 50 teams: *Oklahoma State: 7, Alabama: 5*.

 Wins over FBS teams with winning records: *Oklahoma State: 6, Alabama: 3*.

 Conference titles: *Oklahoma State: 1, Alabama: 0*.

 Losses to Iowa State: *Oklahoma State: 1, Alabama: 0*.

On paper, the Cowboys will have achieved more than the Tide. In real life, however, this is not a debate that's even being given serious consideration (at least yet) for one simple reason: Alabama has a track record; Oklahoma State does not. SEC teams win national championships. Big 12 teams, at least lately, do not. But let's see what happens Saturday night in Stillwater. Voters can be heavily swayed by last impressions. In fact, that's how this whole SEC domination cycle began, back when Florida jumped ahead of Michigan in 2006, warding off a potential Ohio State rematch. 

Ultimately, an LSU-Alabama rematch will neither help nor hurt college football. People will watch. They'll accept the result, even if it's a Tide victory that overrides the first meeting. It's happened before (see Florida-Florida State in 1997) and it may happen again.

But the BCS will need to come up with a new slogan, because its current one will soon ring hollow. Here's a simple alteration: *"Every game counts ... except when it doesn't."*"


Read more: LSU-Alabama rematch makes mockery of BCS system - Stewart Mandel - SI.com

But I think you already knew that.  You're lucky, your team won out on getting to play the championship.  If they hadn't, you'd be the one complaining.  There is a bias for the SEC, pure and simple and it helped Alabama get the game.


----------



## kwc57 (Jun 26, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > kwc57 said:
> ...



We had already seen that game and knew the outcome.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jun 26, 2012)

kwc57 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > kwc57 said:
> ...





I'm sorry - but what exactly was up for debate? Alabama beat a 13-0 SEC Champion 21 to zip. As an LSU fan, it pains me to say it, but its pretty clear who the best team in the country was last year.

Seriously, you doubt the result? Who was the "real" #1 then? LSU? The NC game proves that wrong. OSU? Give me a break.


----------



## ginscpy (Jun 26, 2012)

Anythinh would be better than the last Baba-LSU snoozzzzzzzzeefest6


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jun 26, 2012)

ginscpy said:


> Anythinh would be better than the last Baba-LSU snoozzzzzzzzeefest6



Right, because historically non-SEC schools have played the SEC champ really close in NC games.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 26, 2012)

kwc57 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > kwc57 said:
> ...



Bias?

Each team had one loss.  OK State's loss was to an unranked team.  Alabama's loss was to the #1 team in the nation in OT.    That is why Bama played for all the marbles.  And judging by the results, it was justified.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 26, 2012)

ginscpy said:


> Anythinh would be better than the last Baba-LSU snoozzzzzzzzeefest6



Defense wins championships.  And that was a defensive showcase.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 26, 2012)

kwc57 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Obviously not.  That you claim you "knew" the outcome is laughable.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 26, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



LSU had one of the most dominating defenses in the nation.  They also hung 40 points on 4 or 5 teams that were still ranked in the top 25 at the end of the season.  

The BCS system put the top 2 teams in a game to determine who won the NC.   I can see why it would bother you, but it worked.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jun 26, 2012)

kwc57 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > kwc57 said:
> ...





Buts its NOT. Why does everyone want to turn College football into college basketball? We already have college basketball, assholes. 



> where the committee members speak of teams' "bodies of work," they'd be comparing the following two résumés (assuming an Oklahoma State victory this weekend):
> 
> &#8226; Wins over current BCS Top 25 teams: *Oklahoma State: 5, Alabama: 2*.
> 
> ...



If Alabama had played OSU for the NC game OSU would have fired its entire coaching staff by now. It would have been a blow-out of unparalleled proportions. In fact - did you happen to notice that Alabama blew EVERY TEAM IT PLAYED out of the water, EXCEPT LSU in November - who itself blew EVERY TEAM IT PLAYED out of the water - except Bama in the NC?

Getting the drift here? The ONLY teams that could even come close to beating LSU and Alabama were LSU and Alabama - NOT OSU AND NOT IOWA FUCKING STATE for crissakes.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jun 26, 2012)

kwc57 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


That doesn't even make sense.


I'm real sorry that the SEC is the pre-dominant team in college football, and I'm really sorry that college football isn't college basketball. I know those two facts disturb you.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 26, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



People were upset because there was no high flying offense in the championship game.  Nevermind what wins, they want to see lots of scoring.

Both LSU and Alabama had offensive weapons.  But what they really had more of was defense.  And that game was college football defense at its best.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 26, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



The only teams that didn't get destroyed by LSU were Alabama and MS State.   Funny that the team that was ranked #5 in the western division of the SEC held LSU to only 19 points, when the rest of the teams got slaughtered.    If MS State didn't have to play LSU, Alabama, Arkansas and Auburn every year, they would be winning championships.  Look what they did to Michigan in the bowl game in January of 2011.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jun 26, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > kwc57 said:
> ...



If they want a lot of scoring - they should try basketball. I hear basketball also has a nice playoff bracket. 



> Both LSU and Alabama had offensive weapons.  But what they really had more of was defense.  And that game was college football defense at its best.



Both of the LSU-Bama games this past year were defense at its best.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 26, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



What should disturb them is that either LSU or Bama will likely be in the NC game at the end of the 2012 season too.

At least all the SEC haters got to see something that they have not seen since the BCS system was introduced in 1998.  They got to see an SEC team lose in the BCS Championship game.

So at least now you know how to do that.  You have to put another SEC team in the game to beat them.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 26, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



That is a fact.  Both teams scored plenty against everyone else, but it took 7 quarters of play and 1 overtime to see a single touchdown scored.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jun 26, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > kwc57 said:
> ...



LOL! That would be too awesome! A rematch-rematch! After last year's game, most LSU's fans thought it could never be made right, no matter how many times we pummel bama in the future - if its not in the title game - it won't make it right.



> At least all the SEC haters got to see something that they have not seen since the BCS system was introduced in 1998.  They got to see an SEC team lose in the BCS Championship game.
> 
> So at least now you know how to do that.  You have to put another SEC team in the game to beat them.



And soon they'll get to see all non-SEC schools eliminated in the semi-final round.


----------



## ginscpy (Jun 26, 2012)

I remember listentenin to the1974  USC -ND game when I was  driving back from work.

ND was up 17-0.  (was surprised)

ND up 24-6 at half.

Then AD ran kickoff back forTD 

Final scoreUSC 55 ND 24


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 26, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



An All SEC playoff?   Works for me!

Boy would that steam the SEC haters or what?  lol

But I see one or the other (LSU or Bama) being in the big game this year.  Arkansas worries me, because they have one of the top QBs and one of the top RBs.  But one team that plays in the last regular BCS Championship game will be decided in Nov in Baton Rouge.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jun 26, 2012)

ginscpy said:


> I remember listentenin to the1974  USC -ND game when I was  driving back from work.
> 
> ND was up 17-0.  (was surprised)
> 
> ...



Notre Dame used to have a football team? Cool!


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 26, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> ginscpy said:
> 
> 
> > I remember listentenin to the1974  USC -ND game when I was  driving back from work.
> ...



And the fun news for 2012?  The pre-season polls (largely irrelevant, I know) have 7 SEC teams ranked in the top 25, and 4 in the top 10.

Gotta love SEC Football!!


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jun 26, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...




Arkansas always fucks it up at the end.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 26, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



Yeah, they have been like Georgia in that respect.  But maybe the new head coach can bring them closer.


----------



## ginscpy (Jun 26, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > ginscpy said:
> ...



but ND bear Bama in thew Orange Bowl the next game.

 Forgott that littliedetair??????????????????????????????????????????/


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 26, 2012)

ginscpy said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



I haven't forgotten anything.  The difference is that I can look at recent seasons and cheer.  You have to go back how far???


----------



## hortysir (Jun 26, 2012)

So how will this decision allow anyone BUT an SEC team win?


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 26, 2012)

hortysir said:


> So how will this decision allow anyone BUT an SEC team win?



It will allow more teams a shot at the championship.

All the other conferences have to do is win throughout the year and then beat the top SEC team.


----------



## hortysir (Jun 26, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > So how will this decision allow anyone BUT an SEC team win?
> ...



I wonder how many more rule changes the Big 10 will need to take the championship from an SEC team, then...


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 26, 2012)

Semi final games will be in rotating bowl games on New Years Eve and New Years with the championship a week later

Four teams chosen by Comittee rather than polls


----------



## samjones (Jun 27, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> The ONLY teams that could even come close to beating LSU and Alabama were LSU and Alabama - NOT OSU AND NOT IOWA FUCKING STATE for crissakes.



I think that the official name of the school actually is Iowa Fucking State for Crissakes University.

The Cowboys "didn't come close to beating LSU and Alabama" because the Cowboys were never given a chance to *play* LSU or Alabama.  If they had been given that opportunity they would have won and they would be NC right now.  The same thing is true for Stanford.

LSU and Alabama played for a NC because the false economy of the BCS rankings system uses circular logic - the best teams come from the best conferences who are the best conferences because they have the best teams.


----------



## samjones (Jun 27, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> samjones said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



I have no doubt that the "4 best conference champions", year in and year out will be comprised of teams from the ACC, B1G, Big 12, PAC12 and SEC.

Let the conferences send whatever designate they want.  One conference will be left out in the cold every year, but that's the way it has to be with a 4 team playoff.  

Every SEC team has a pretty good shot at winning the NC under this system.  They just have to win the SEC first.  

Last year it would have been

1. LSU
2. Okie State
3. Stanford
4. Wisconsin

Which would have been perfect, because Okie State and Stanford would have been given a chance to play to see who would have the privilege of beating LSU for the NC.

So Bama would have stayed home.  Big deal.  They could have used the time to gather around Bryant-Denny and ask themselves how they lost to LSU there.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 27, 2012)

samjones said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > samjones said:
> ...



Okie State and Stanford??   LSU would have mopped the field with either one.  Stanford lost to Oregon 53-30.  That is not just a loss, that is being whipped like a redheaded stedpchild.  And by Oregon?  LSU handed Oregon their worst defeat in how long?  LSU hung how many points on Oregon?

Okie State wouldn't have done any better.  If you can't beat a team that ends the season 6-7, you weren't going to stop the LSU juggernaut.


The BCS Championship did what it was supposed to do at the end of the 2011 season.  It put the #1 and #2 teams in a bowl game together.

What you don't like is that both were from the same conference and it was a rematch.   The key point is, there was nothing in the rules about either.

But if you have to keep rewriting the rules until an SEC team doesn't win the NC, I guess you have to keep rewriting the rules.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 27, 2012)

samjones said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > samjones said:
> ...



And Wisconsin?   You have to drop all the way down to the #10 team to get a 4th conference involved?  And you want a 2 loss team over the team that lost only once and that was in OT to the #1 team?

How far are you willing to stretch the bounds of logic to try and stack the deck against the SEC?

Alabama, Oregon, Akansas, Boise St, Kansas State, and South Carolina were all ranked higher than Wisconsin and you thinking skipping them would give you a true Nat'l Champion?  lol


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 27, 2012)

While we don't know for sure, everything I am reading points to a 4 team playoff with the top ranked teams being selected by a committee.  Nothing yet about limits of teams by conference.


----------



## hortysir (Jun 27, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> samjones said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


----------



## Zander (Jun 27, 2012)

I am against a playoff system.  This ain't the pro's.......eat shit.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 27, 2012)

Zander said:


> I am against a playoff system.  This ain't the pro's.......eat shit.



It ain't ???


----------



## Zander (Jun 27, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > I am against a playoff system.  This ain't the pro's.......eat shit.
> ...


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 27, 2012)

Zander said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Zander said:
> ...



Making a billion $$$$$$ a year is not pro?

Oh....I forgot.....the players work for free


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 27, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Hardly for free.  They get treated like royalty, get an education worth $40k or more, and get room & board.  You try feeding a lineman.


----------



## Zander (Jun 27, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Not for free. They do it for the chicks.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 27, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Zander said:
> ...



Ok.....If you believe that


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 27, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Believe what?  That they get a free education?  I had classes with some of them.

I've seen those kids eat.  I believe that.


Not sure what else I am supposed to believe.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jun 27, 2012)

samjones said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > samjones said:
> ...



YEAH, THAT'S REAL PERFECT, IT DOESN'T EVEN INCLUDE THE BEST TEAM IN THE NATION, YOU FUCKING MORON.



> because Okie State and Stanford would have been given a chance to play to see who would have the privilege of beating LSU for the NC.


OSU lost to IOWA STATE who finished 5-7. Lord almighty you are stupid. LSU would - have pummelled ANYBODY (and they did),  except the #1 team in the country, which you didn't even include in your lame ass bracket. In the final BCS standings, LSU had beaten #1 Alabama, #4 Oregon, #5 Arkansas, #18 West Virginia, and #20 Georgia, as well as three teams receiving votes in the Final Coaches - Auburn, Mississippi St., and Florida. If you can name any other team that came close to playing that schedule and beating every team in it once - I'd love to see it. 


> So Bama would have stayed home.  Big deal.  They could have used the time to gather around Bryant-Denny and ask themselves how they lost to LSU there.



Great. So the best team in the country doesn't even get to play in a 4 team bracket just because you can't stand to think of the possibility that the top two teams in the nation really are in the same division. Good solution.


----------



## Papageorgio (Jun 27, 2012)

samjones said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > samjones said:
> ...



Wisconsin? Stanford? No Alabama? 

Put the crack pipe away, it makes you look stupid.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 27, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> samjones said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



This is the kind of stuff that makes me laugh.  People who claim to want a playoff, but try and come up with any way they can to limit the best teams from being in that playoff.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 28, 2012)

The ONLY way to have a true National Champion is to determine it on the field.

Get the right people on the selection committee and have a 4 team playoff.  Select the *BEST* 4 teams.  Nevermind conference lines or whatever. 

Put the 4 best teams in a playoff and let'em play!


----------



## Zander (Jun 28, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> The ONLY way to have a true National Champion is to determine it on the field.
> 
> Get the right people on the selection committee and have a 4 team playoff.  Select the *BEST* 4 teams.  Nevermind conference lines or whatever.
> 
> Put the 4 best teams in a playoff and let'em play!



Yeah sure. Who are the "right" people on the selection committee?   It's far to subjective and 4 teams is too few. 

The only real way to have a "true" national championship is by going to a 32 team tournament that takes place over 4 weeks in late November and December- we go from 32 to 2 in  4 weeks. With the Final 2 teams playing on the second Sunday in January.  The losers can play in Bowl games between Christmas and New Years day.


----------



## Papageorgio (Jun 28, 2012)

Zander said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > The ONLY way to have a true National Champion is to determine it on the field.
> ...



Why 32? Why not 64 or 128 or 16?


----------



## Zander (Jun 28, 2012)

Papageorgio said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Because it fits the calendar.... that's really the only reason. Personally, I like the bowl system. I really don't care which team is the "national champion".


----------



## Papageorgio (Jun 28, 2012)

Zander said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> > Zander said:
> ...



Okay, that works, as far as the playoffs, I'm thinking the BCS Bowl is all that is needed and can be played the day after all the major bowl games.


----------



## samjones (Jun 28, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> OSU lost to IOWA STATE who finished 5-7. Lord almighty you are stupid. LSU would - have pummelled ANYBODY (and they did),  except the #1 team in the country, which you didn't even include in your lame ass bracket. In the final BCS standings, LSU had beaten #1 Alabama, #4 Oregon, #5 Arkansas, #18 West Virginia, and #20 Georgia



West Virginia and Georgia were badly overrated.  The win against Oregon was a first game win and the whole South Carolina/Alabama/Arkansas/LSU, etc. thing is a false economy.  Why are they great?  Because they play in a great conference. Why is the conference great?  Because it has great teams.  SEC football a house made of sticks and it will be proven to be a fraud.

 Stanford and the Cowboys would have beaten either Alabama or LSU if they had played them in the title game.  So would have Oregon.  I believe that Wisconsin would probably have taken out either of them as well

But, then again, your opinion must be the right one because you called me a name in ALL CAPS.


----------



## samjones (Jun 28, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> And Wisconsin?   You have to drop all the way down to the #10 team to get a 4th conference involved?  And you want a 2 loss team over the team that lost only once and that was in OT to the #1 team?



It happens in the NFL all the time.  Just happened last year.  The Giants didn't have that great a season and late in it they were in danger of being left out of the playoffs in favor of the Cowboys.

A few years back the Cardinals didn't even belong in the playoffs and they went to the Superbowl.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 28, 2012)

samjones said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > OSU lost to IOWA STATE who finished 5-7. Lord almighty you are stupid. LSU would - have pummelled ANYBODY (and they did),  except the #1 team in the country, which you didn't even include in your lame ass bracket. In the final BCS standings, LSU had beaten #1 Alabama, #4 Oregon, #5 Arkansas, #18 West Virginia, and #20 Georgia
> ...



Oregon got taken to the woodshed by LSU.  And LSU scored 40 against the Ducks.  And LSU didn't cross the 50 yardline but once in the entire championship game.  No, Oregon wouldn't have done anything against the Tide.

Stanford lost to Oregon, so see the above.

The Cowboys lost to an unranked team.  You say they would have beaten Alabama?  I seriously doubt it.  

The SEC is a house of sticks and will be proven a fraud?

There have been plenty of chances to prove the SEC a fraud.   
Oregon could have in 2011.
Texas could have in 2010.
Oklahoma could have in 2009.
Ohio State could have in 2007 & 2008.
Oklahoma could have in 2001.
Florida State could have in 1999.

But none of those top ranked teams proved anyone a fraud.  If anything, they proved the SEC is the premier conference in NCAA Football.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 28, 2012)

samjones said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > And Wisconsin?   You have to drop all the way down to the #10 team to get a 4th conference involved?  And you want a 2 loss team over the team that lost only once and that was in OT to the #1 team?
> ...



And higher ranked teams were left out of the playoffs?


----------



## ginscpy (Jun 29, 2012)

The 4 team playoff is copout - BULLSHIT.

Just to get the public off th ecase of the BCS.

16 teams would be best - 8 teams acceptable.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 29, 2012)

ginscpy said:


> The 4 team playoff is copout - BULLSHIT.
> 
> Just to get the public off th ecase of the BCS.
> 
> 16 teams would be best - 8 teams acceptable.



Bigger tournaments are coming.  This is a huge step in the right direction.


----------



## Papageorgio (Jun 29, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> samjones said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



The two best teams last year were Alabama and LSU, no doubt about it. The SEC is the best football conference. No doubt, the last several years the proof is there. 

Anyone that doesn't understand that, doesn't understand football. Name a stronger conference in the last 5 years.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jun 29, 2012)

Zander said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > The ONLY way to have a true National Champion is to determine it on the field.
> ...


Too few for WHAT? Too few to reduce the regular season to worthless?


> The only real way to have a "true" national championship is by going to a 32 team tournament that takes place over 4 weeks in late November and December



WHY is that the only "real" way?



Here's an idea - you want a 32 team playoff bracket - WATCH SUB-DIVISION FCS FOOTBALL INSTEAD,  PLEASE KEEP YOUR FILTHY HANDS OFF OUR TRADITIONS Why do the cultish followers of the massive playoff bracket - like yourself - insist that BOTH upper subdivisions must bow to your only "real" way of doing it? The FCS already has a 32 team bracket. If that's what America really wanted, they wouldn't be watching the BCS games - they'd be watching the FCS playoffs.  Why do you insist that the FBS must also adopt a retarded playoff format? Its the way they do it in basketball? Hey why don't we just get rid of football and have them play basketball, instead? That's the only "real" way of determining a champion.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jun 29, 2012)

samjones said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > OSU lost to IOWA STATE who finished 5-7. Lord almighty you are stupid. LSU would - have pummelled ANYBODY (and they did),  except the #1 team in the country, which you didn't even include in your lame ass bracket. In the final BCS standings, LSU had beaten #1 Alabama, #4 Oregon, #5 Arkansas, #18 West Virginia, and #20 Georgia
> ...


Georgia won its division. According to the SEC haters, that makes them better than Bama.


> The win against Oregon was a first game win



Well oh shucks, LSU didn't get the memo that the first game doesn't count. Lord you are incredibly stupid.



> and the whole South Carolina/Alabama/Arkansas/LSU, etc. thing is a false economy.  Why are they great?  Because they play in a great conference. Why is the conference great?  Because it has great teams.  SEC football a house made of sticks and it will be proven to be a fraud.


How many more national titles do you think they'll win before the "fraud" is proven.



> Stanford and the Cowboys would have beaten either Alabama or LSU if they had played them in the title game.


And this is based on the fact the Cowboys lost to 5-7 Iowa St. but LSU destroyed all of its regular season opposition, except its OT win against Bama? Why empircal evidence can you use to justify this?* OSU is a better team than LSU because LSU decimated Oregon in the FIRST game? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense!
*



> So would have Oregon.  I believe that Wisconsin would probably have taken out either of them as well
> 
> But, then again, your opinion must be the right one because you called me a name in ALL CAPS.



No - yours must be the right one, because its the one not supported at all by the evidence, and which requires you to declare all of LSU's wins to not really count for one reason or another.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jun 29, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> ginscpy said:
> 
> 
> > The 4 team playoff is copout - BULLSHIT.
> ...



Its a horrible step. Before long 4 an 5 loss teams will be considered to be deserving of a shot at the title. That's fucking retarded.

A playoff bracket should be no bigger than needed to insure every team that has a reasonable claim to #1 - and only #1 - is in the bracket. Its not about giving teams a "shot at the title" just because why not - its about resolving #1. If you look back over the years very rarely is it reasonable to say the "true #1" wound up ranked lower than #4 by the end of the regular season, so a 4 team playoff will work.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 29, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> samjones said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



The excuse that Oregon lost because it was the first game is laughable.  Besides, be grateful it was teh first game.  If the Ducks had been blown out like that late in the season they would have dropped out of the top 5 teams at least, if not out of the top 10.  I think you are convenientlty forgetting just how badly the Mad Hatter and those Bayou Bengals manhandled Oregon.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jun 29, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > samjones said:
> ...



What an awesome game to watch.


----------



## samjones (Jun 29, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> samjones said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, in 2008 when Arizona went to the Superbowl, if they had to compete for a wildcard spot in the playoffs then the Jets and Tampa Bay would have been in the playoffs instead of Arizona and Chicago might have had the tie-breaker over them as well.  It was the inability of the other teams in the NFC West to have a quality season that gave the Cardinals their playoff berth.  (I'm aware that the Jets are an AFC team.  I'm including them to illustrate a point).

Last year, if the Giants and Tennessee would have competed for their playoff spot based on wildcard tie-breakers (understood, different conferences) then the Titans would have gone to the playoffs, the Giants would have stayed home and we would have a different world champion right now.

This happens all the time in the NFL.


----------



## samjones (Jun 29, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > ginscpy said:
> ...


No it won't.  Because they're denying a playoff berth to at least one of the champions of the Power 5 conferences.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jun 29, 2012)

samjones said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



And? So the fuck what?


----------



## samjones (Jun 29, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> And this is based on the fact the Cowboys lost to 5-7 Iowa St. but LSU destroyed all of its regular season opposition, except its OT win against Bama? Why empircal evidence can you use to justify this?* OSU is a better team than LSU because LSU decimated Oregon in the FIRST game? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense!
> *



The Clones are accustomed to playing the role of spoiler. They've been doing it for decades.  Iowa State's team was okay last year.  They flirted with the top 25 most of the season.  They played a perfect game that night in Ames.  It's not the first time ISU has played a perfect game to beat a much better conference rival.  Heck, they did it to my Huskers in Lincoln a few years back.

The bottom-line, the Cowboys would have beaten any team in the country in a NC game.  They simply weren't given the chance to play and that's why the Tide are the #1 team in college football..... because they never had to play the best team in college football.

End of story.

See - I can make my point with no curse words, no unusual fonts or boldfacing, and no all-caps.  I'm versatile that way.  Like the honeybadger of the English language.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 29, 2012)

samjones said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > samjones said:
> ...



There is a huge difference when you do that when there are only 32 teams and 12 are going to the playoffs.  In otherwords, 38% of the teams in the NFL get into the playoffs.

In college there will be 4 spots out of 126 teams.  In college, only 0.03% will get into the playoffs.

There is no rational reason for excluding the best teams, unless it is simply to handicap the better conferences.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 29, 2012)

samjones said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > And this is based on the fact the Cowboys lost to 5-7 Iowa St. but LSU destroyed all of its regular season opposition, except its OT win against Bama? Why empircal evidence can you use to justify this?* OSU is a better team than LSU because LSU decimated Oregon in the FIRST game? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense!
> ...



We played the best team, at the time, in college football not once but twice.  The first time it took OT to beat us by 3.  The second time we slaughtered them.

It comes down to 2 teams having one loss.  The loss of one teams was to the #1 team, the loss of the other was to a team that ended up with a losing record.

Nope, sorry.  The Tide should have been there and we showed that.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jun 29, 2012)

samjones said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > And this is based on the fact the Cowboys lost to 5-7 Iowa St. but LSU destroyed all of its regular season opposition, except its OT win against Bama? Why empircal evidence can you use to justify this?* OSU is a better team than LSU because LSU decimated Oregon in the FIRST game? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense!
> ...



LOL! So OSU's lost to Iowa State doesn't count because "The Clones are accustomed to playing the role of spoiler. " You don't even know how fucking retarded you sound, do you?



> The bottom-line, the Cowboys would have beaten any team in the country in a NC game.



According to your crystal ball and not based on any facts - except that LSU blew out Oregon in the first game and that someone means LSU isn't very good. I suppose if Oregon had "played the role of spoiler" in years past, and LSU had lost to them, you'd be saying how great LSU was last year, right? Because apparently, according to you, its better to LOSE than to BLOW OUT a top 5 team in game 1.


> They simply weren't given the chance to play


They had a chance, idiot. They lost it when they lost to a sub-par team.



> and that's why the Tide are the #1 team in college football..... because they never had to play the best team in college football.


That doesn't even make sense.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jun 29, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> samjones said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


You mean 3%, not 0.03%.

Its not really a good comparison, though. Although we can exclude a few teams from contention this year - 5 years from now - any team in the NFL could be a contender for the Superbowl. Not so in FBS. 5 years from now UL-Lafayette will still have no hope of winning a title, and so will dozens of lower mid-majors. So point is - not ALL of the 128 teams in FBS actually have a reasonable chance of winning a title - in the NFL the competition is far closer.


----------



## Leweman (Jun 29, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> samjones said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



It was just another crap year for the BCS.   Ok state played better teams and ended up beating teams that were led by the top two picks in the NFL draft.   No one can ever argue that OKC couldn't have played against anybody and won.  They got hosed in a system that screwed people more years than not.   Fewer teams will be hosed starting in 2014.  And most years every team that deserves it should get in.  There will still be years where it won't be good enough though due to the number of teams.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 29, 2012)

Leweman said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > samjones said:
> ...



They didn't get hosed.  They lost to a nobody team.  That put them back a step behind a team that only lost to the #1 team.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jun 29, 2012)

Leweman said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > samjones said:
> ...


ISU can.



> They got hosed in a system that screwed people more years than not.   Fewer teams will be hosed starting in 2014.


Yet more teams will whine and bitch, because now a claim that you got shafted out of the #4 spot will be considered relevant.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 29, 2012)

Leweman said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > samjones said:
> ...



OK State didn't play any defenses worth their salt last year.  Its easy to look great when the opposing defense sucks.

OK State played 1 team ranked in the top 20 defenses.  Bama played 5 games against defenses in the top 20 or better.

Ok State played no games against teams ranked in the top 10 for defense.

Bama played 3 games against top 10 defenses.

The average ranking for the defenses OK State played in 2011 is 85.2.
The average ranking for the defenses Bama played in 2011 is 37.4.



Ok State would NOT have beaten LSU.  Their defense was ranked 107 in the nation.  Lsu would have put 50 points on them.


----------



## Leweman (Jun 29, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> Leweman said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



You'll never know. Thanks BCS.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 29, 2012)

Leweman said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Leweman said:
> ...



That can be said for dozens of teams.  The simple fact is, OK St lost to a nobody.  That cost them the chance at a beatdown by LSU.  

Want to play for the championship?  Beat the teams that have losing records.


----------



## Leweman (Jun 29, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> Leweman said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



I suppose ... winning your division should also be a requirement then.  But oh well this new system should help remedy the situation.


----------



## Papageorgio (Jun 29, 2012)

samjones said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > And this is based on the fact the Cowboys lost to 5-7 Iowa St. but LSU destroyed all of its regular season opposition, except its OT win against Bama? Why empircal evidence can you use to justify this?* OSU is a better team than LSU because LSU decimated Oregon in the FIRST game? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense!
> ...



The bottom line is that it is your opinion not a fact, next time beat a team like Iowa St., then there would have been no question that they deserved to play.


----------



## Papageorgio (Jun 29, 2012)

Leweman said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Leweman said:
> ...



It won't help at all, some nut job will complain that there 5 team should have been in it and they would have won. Look at all the whining about this years 3 team.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 29, 2012)

Leweman said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Leweman said:
> ...



If that is part f the rules at the beginning.  I don't see it anywhere so far.

Just don't try and make it part of the rules at the last minute.  The BCS rules say nothing about that.


----------



## Truthseeker420 (Jul 1, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> samjones said:
> 
> 
> > Truthseeker420 said:
> ...



winning your conference is winning on the field.


----------



## Papageorgio (Jul 1, 2012)

Truthseeker420 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > samjones said:
> ...



But it wouldn't be the best teams. 1, 3 and 5 maybe, 10, nope.


----------



## Truthseeker420 (Jul 1, 2012)

Papageorgio said:


> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Who says some geeky sports writer knows what team is the best?


----------



## Papageorgio (Jul 1, 2012)

Truthseeker420 said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> > Truthseeker420 said:
> ...



It is not just some geeky sports writer, there are a lot of other factors including, but not limited to the coaches poll which has always been my favorite, then throw in the computer polls.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jul 1, 2012)

Truthseeker420 said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> > Truthseeker420 said:
> ...



Yeah, just because they watch almost every game, study the teams, and have spent their careers watching and writing about the sport, what the hell to they know.

Maybe we should just ask the fans.


----------



## Papageorgio (Jul 1, 2012)

I'm sure asking the fans would be best, then we could see Slippery Rock and Ball St. play for the championship, that would be meaningful.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jul 1, 2012)

I would like to point out, for the record, and as an LSU fan it pains me to say it, but

LSU and Alabama were SEC West CO-Champions in 2011.

Each went 7-1 in the SEC and had the highest division record in the west. That makes them SEC West Co-Champions. *So to say that Alabama made it to the title game without winning their division is FALSE.*

EDIT: I am STUPID and WRONG


----------



## WinterBorn (Jul 1, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> I would like to point out, for the record, and as an LSU fan it pains me to say it, but
> 
> LSU and Alabama were SEC West CO-Champions in 2011.
> 
> Each went 7-1 in the SEC and had the highest division record in the west. That makes them SEC West Co-Champions. *So to say that Alabama made it to the title game without winning their division is FALSE.*



Ummm, when the title game started, LSU was 8-0 in the SEC, while Bama was 7-1.  Bama got to the title game by being the #2 ranked team in the nation.


----------



## ginscpy (Jul 2, 2012)

So here's the question:  Is anybody going to give a RATS BEHIND which team wins the BCS in 2012 and 2013??


----------



## kwc57 (Jul 2, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> > Papageorgio said:
> ...



Or maybe we should use stats and take out the biased human element of coaches and writers.  Numbers don't lie, people do.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jul 2, 2012)

ginscpy said:


> So here's the question:  Is anybody going to give a RATS BEHIND which team wins the BCS in 2012 and 2013??



It will still be the same games played as before.  So the fans will still be as rabid as always, and the winning teams will get the same glory as always.

If Bama repeats as Nat'l Champs, I will  be screaming my head off and cheering like a mad man.


In other words, yes.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jul 2, 2012)

kwc57 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Truthseeker420 said:
> ...



Stats only?   Stats favor the teams with weak schedules and seriously handicap the teams with great defenses.


----------



## Papageorgio (Jul 2, 2012)

kwc57 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Truthseeker420 said:
> ...



The BCS uses a computer, not sure what numbers are put in, I think after 12-14 weeks, the number of coaches and sports writers, with the computer give us a real good idea of who the best teams are. Alabama and LSU were the best two, the just happened to be in the same conference. The whining and crying about Ok St is just that, if they wanted to play for the National Championship, don't lose a game to an unranked team.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jul 2, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > I would like to point out, for the record, and as an LSU fan it pains me to say it, but
> ...



LOL! Boy I am dumb. I wish I could neg rep myself! Can you do it for me?


I guess I just wished LSU's one loss was in the regular season!

Must have gotten confused about 2003, when LSU and Ole Piss were technically "SEC West Co-Champions"


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jul 2, 2012)

ginscpy said:


> So here's the question:  Is anybody going to give a RATS BEHIND which team wins the BCS in 2012 and 2013??



College football fans will.

Those are the same people who give a rat's behind whether or not LSU beats Alabama in the _regular _season, or whether or not Michigan beats OSU in the _regular _season, or whether or not Notre Dame beats USC in the _regular_ season.

Those people aren't you. Like a good college basketball fan, you'd prefer to sleep during what you consider to be an irrelevant regular season, and wake up only when a 32 team playoff  starts up - including 3, 4, and maybe even 5 loss teams.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jul 2, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Depends on which stats you use. 

Technically the BCS computers use stats. But they only use win/loss and the computer ratings of who you played. I think some use Home/Away, but they are in fact forbidden from using point spreads.

I always thought that a good way to use points that doesn't punish good defense is to use the ratio of points for to points against instead of the difference. So, for instance, a 10-3 win would score a 10/3 = 3.3333, which would beat a 28-10 win, which would only score a 2.8.





Personally, I'd be 100% pleased if college football went back to the way it used to be. No BCS - just the bowls. If the polls can't agree on #1 - oh well. Playoffs do NOT always result in the best team winning. I'll take ties back as well, if it can't be won in regulation, end it.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jul 2, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



Nah, I can't neg rep you.  You were talking good about the SEC and giving Bama a boost too.  Kinda sad that we both try to explain the BCS Championship teams to these SEC haters.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jul 2, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> ginscpy said:
> 
> 
> > So here's the question:  Is anybody going to give a RATS BEHIND which team wins the BCS in 2012 and 2013??
> ...



College football fans, the real ones, care about every game played.   Thats why thousands of fans show up to watch spring games.

A true fans watches when his team wins and when his team loses.  I watched every game Bama played during the Mike Dubose years.  A 3-8 season is tough to watch, but if I couldn't get to a game I watched it on tv.  I proudly wore my Crimson Tide gear then too.  Which is why I have no problem being a proud fan now.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jul 2, 2012)

Ginscpy, you know what the scariest words in college football are?

"You play Alabama next?"


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jul 2, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> Ginscpy, you know what the scariest words in college football are?
> 
> "You play Alabama next?"



Not this year.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jul 2, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Ginscpy, you know what the scariest words in college football are?
> ...



What?   I mean, I know LSU will be loaded too.  But do you think Nick Saban isn't going to have a defense that will keep offensive coordinators up at night or give them nightmares when they do sleep?

He just reloaded.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jul 2, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...




They can at least plan for Saban.

No one knows what the fuck the Hat is going to do, not even him.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jul 2, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



Yeah, you got me there.  Thats why I was so surprised at the BCS Championship game.  The Hat didn't do anything crazy.


----------



## samjones (Jul 3, 2012)

I see 3 general lines of reasoning here that are flawed and should be thrown out of any conversation.

1. College football has many, many teams vying for a championship.  The NFL has few.

In fact, only about half the teams from the Power5 have any realistic shot at next year's title - and I'm being charitable.

2. The 4 team playoffs will open up the possibility of playing for a championship to more teams.

Well, yeah, kind of.  It actually closes the door to more teams if you compare it instead to a Plus One system.

3. A playoff system will make sure that the team who deserves it gets a national championship.

Nope - just like a team that definitely did not "deserve it" won the SuperBowl last year, the same thing will happen in college football soon enough.  Some 2 game loser will get hot at the end of some such thing.  College football has been the only sport that really made that big a deal about "who deserves it".  Other sports just have a playoff.  The 4 team playoff is a step away from giving the championship to the team that earned it and an 8 team playoff would be even worse.

A couple of years back 'Bama stole a championship by executing their game plan of knocking McCoy out of the game.  Hey, it's part of the game and all that, but anyone could have done it.  Even a 4 seed or an 8 seed.  This will happen soon enough.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jul 3, 2012)

samjones said:


> I see 3 general lines of reasoning here that are flawed and should be thrown out of any conversation.
> 
> 1. College football has many, many teams vying for a championship.  The NFL has few.
> 
> ...



Bama STOLE a championship because Colt McCoy was injured??  WTF?

The Texas fans certainly didn't mind that Sam Bradford got hurt during the Red River Shootout, now did they?   Did Texas STEAL that game?  Because the final score was a LOT closer than the Texas Bama game.  And if Texas had lost that game they wouldn't have been in the BCS Championship.

So don't makeup bullshit.  Bama's game plan did not include injuring the QB.  But if you can't play with the big boys maybe soccer is a better sport for you.


----------



## samjones (Jul 3, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> So don't makeup bullshit.  Bama's game plan did not include injuring the QB.  But if you can't play with the big boys maybe soccer is a better sport for you.



Oh gee, forgive me for actually watching the game.  Perhaps if I had only read about it on Wikipedia I would have your astute observations.

Not only did the Tide include knocking McCoy out of the game in their plan, but it pretty much *was* their plan.  It was the only way they could win and they followed through and they won.  It was legal, then, as it is now and it has long been considered a time-honored tradition in football.... one that will disappear soon and it's a game plan that will get coaches fired in the future, but I do recognize a difference between the football of the past and the football of the present and future unlike some people on-board, so let me say congratulations to the Tide on winning a championship by beating Texas.

My Huskers never thought to send some thug into the middle to beat the fuck out of McCoy.  Pity, we had just the thug to do it that year.  Guess we just aren't that smart.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jul 3, 2012)

samjones said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > So don't makeup bullshit.  Bama's game plan did not include injuring the QB.  But if you can't play with the big boys maybe soccer is a better sport for you.
> ...




I watched the game too.  McCoy got tackled.  Did Dareus do anything that even resembled bad play?  He tackled the QB.   The Bama defense attacked every phase of the Texas offense.  Your claims that our entire plan was to hurt McCoy is bullshit and typical sour grapes.

Bama scored 37 points against Texas.  Did McCoy plan to play defense too?  Against the Texas run defense (top ranked) got hit for 2 touchdowns by our starting RB and 2 more by his backup.  I guess McCoy would have stopped them, huh?

Bama's defense was in the Texas backfield all night.   If McCoy had stayed in the game it might have been a different game, but claiming that Texas would have won is nonsense and fantasy.

And your claim that Bama stole that game is nothing more that whining by the losing fans.  There is no shame in losing.  But at least buck-up and accept it.  It was a tough break for Texas, and that is all it was.  Bama played hard in 14 games and took home the trophy.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jul 3, 2012)

samjones said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > So don't makeup bullshit.  Bama's game plan did not include injuring the QB.  But if you can't play with the big boys maybe soccer is a better sport for you.
> ...



Exactly what are you claiming will disapear?  Tackling?  Will coaches be fired for having their defensive linemen tackle the QB without a safety net?


----------



## Papageorgio (Jul 3, 2012)

samjones said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > So don't makeup bullshit.  Bama's game plan did not include injuring the QB.  But if you can't play with the big boys maybe soccer is a better sport for you.
> ...



Just tell us you hate Bama. Texas couldn't stop them, and Texas' Oline let Bama run over them. Champions don't make excuses. This BS gets old.


----------



## samjones (Jul 4, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> And your claim that Bama stole that game is nothing more that whining by the losing fans.  There is no shame in losing.  But at least buck-up and accept it.  It was a tough break for Texas, and that is all it was.  Bama played hard in 14 games and took home the trophy.



Nope - there's no shame in losing the championship game. It's alot more fun to win it, but I know what it feels like to simply face a better team in the championship game.  We did it in '01.    Some Texas fan somewhere may be whining, but he ain't me.  As a Husker fan I hate 3 teams, in order.

#3 - Miami
#2 - Texas

I'll let you go ahead and guess who #1 is.


----------



## samjones (Jul 4, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> Exactly what are you claiming will disapear?  Tackling?  Will coaches be fired for having their defensive linemen tackle the QB without a safety net?


Pretty much....

I don't know if you played or not.  I did in high school and I was coached to hit the ball carrier very hard with my shoulder pad and then, if he was going down, to slam him to the ground as hard as possible and then after he had hit the ground to continue to put the pad on him hard to make it hurt.

If I didn't do these things I wasn't following-through on the tackle and I would get screamed at.  If I did these things and the ball-carrier had trouble getting up because he was hit so hard then I would be applauded by the coaches and the entire defense.  The logic was that this might create turnovers, or maybe this guy would "hear footsteps" next time.

I doubt that mentality will survive the next 10 years.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jul 4, 2012)

samjones said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly what are you claiming will disapear?  Tackling?  Will coaches be fired for having their defensive linemen tackle the QB without a safety net?
> ...



I was coached to put a shoulder pad into him, wrap his legs up if I could, but get my arms around him anyway, and drive him to the ground.  I'm 6'2" and weighed 225 when I played HS ball in '77 & '78.  Yeah, we were told to hit hard.  Its how the game is played.  Being from Tuscaloosa, we all pretty much worshipped Bear Bryant.  I remember the saying of his that our coach repeated over and over.  "Line up across from the man.  Knock him down.  Help him up and tell him you'll be back to do it again".

I found the play where Colt McCoy was injured on YouTube.  As I remembered it, there was nothing wrong with the play.  It was a legal hit in a big time college football game.


----------



## samjones (Jul 4, 2012)

WinterBorn said:


> I found the play where Colt McCoy was injured on YouTube.  As I remembered it, there was nothing wrong with the play.  It was a legal hit in a big time college football game.


On that we agree.  It was a legal hit and it was a big time game.  

On other points we do not agree.  It is true that McCoy did not play defense for the Longhorns, but it is not true that his perfomance at quarterback had no standing on how many points the Tide woudl have scored.  A great offense impacts the other teams offensive output in 2 ways.

1. by keeping the other team's offense off the field.
2. by leaving the other team's offense with bad starting field position.

Texas didn't have the chance to do either because they had a highly inexperienced freshman playing quarterback that game.

More importantly, this type of dumb luck that granted Bama a national championship will become more common with a 4 team playoff and much more common if there were an 8 team playoff.  It's the kind of dumb luck combined with streaky talent that managed to give the NFL's Eli Manning 2 Superbowl rings despite the fact that he isn't really a very good quarterback and has never had a good season.  Is college football ready for that?


----------



## WinterBorn (Jul 5, 2012)

samjones said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > I found the play where Colt McCoy was injured on YouTube.  As I remembered it, there was nothing wrong with the play.  It was a legal hit in a big time college football game.
> ...



Every team that makes it through the season undefeated has had some serious good luck.  Its part of the game.

And while you agree with me that the hit was legal, you still claimed that Bama "stole" the National Championship.  Which is completely bogus.


----------



## Papageorgio (Jul 5, 2012)

samjones said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > I found the play where Colt McCoy was injured on YouTube.  As I remembered it, there was nothing wrong with the play.  It was a legal hit in a big time college football game.
> ...



More sour grapes. Why is it that no champion has ever won without dumb luck? 

As far as Manning, what leads you to believe that he isn't a very good quarterback? Because many experts disagree with you view. So what is it that makes him not a very good QB?


----------



## samjones (Jul 5, 2012)

Papageorgio said:


> As far as Manning, what leads you to believe that he isn't a very good quarterback? Because many experts disagree with you view. So what is it that makes him not a very good QB?



He isn't good.  That's the problem.  2007 and 2011 were not good seasons for the Giants.  2008 was a good season for the Giants until Burress shot his dick off, then it all kindof fell apart.

The rest of Manning's years have been either not making the playoffs or losing the wild card round. 

It's just one of those peculiarities of football.  Not-very-good-Quarterback wins 2 Superbowls.


----------

