F#CK THE BCS.......GO TO A NCAA PLAYOFF

[NakaNaka]

<< Horsesh1t, politics and money, that's all it is. >>



Amen.

 

[mithrandir2001]

I can't believe I'm going to be rooting for Miami...

 

[Tates]

<< Hamburgerpimp

Place both of your hands on your ass and pull hard. maybe you will be able to pull your head out of it. Sponsors are not the only reason there is not a playoff system.

At least Nebraska didn't get beat by an unranked team at home, then loose by 35. Colorado is good, but they still have two losses. The reason the BCS was created was to take some of the politics out of the championship. And politics certainly did NOT put Nebraska in the Rose Bowl, other wise the coachs would not have bumped Colorado above Nebraska. >>



Just plain rude Warlord......your bias is painfully obvious:frown:

 

[NeoV]

Gator, teams do not spend anywhere near what the major bowls pay out to travel!

If the NCAA was all about money, why wouldn't they want to add a 4 or 8 team playoff after the bowl games?

There is more involved here than just $$, the NCAA wants to be 'different & traditional'.

BTW, this situation isn't helped with Miami beating the snot out of Nebraska...there will always be the "what if Colorado/Oregon" played Miami?

Personally, I like Oregon, but I think Miami clobbers them, as I think Colorado will. I think Colorado, as well as they are playing right now, might be able to beat Miami.

 

[toant103]

should be oregan vs miami. i hate miami. I'm from VT. hehehe

 

[Tates]

<< should be oregon vs miami >>



I absolutely agree....and yes, my bias is painfully obvious

 

[iamfried]

The real problem if Colorado went to the Rose Bowl is they have two losses. Suppose CU wins. Then you are under obligation to make them #1. What if Oregon then beat NU in the Orange bowl. All you NU haters are saying that you would vote the winner of the Orange bowl if NU beats Miami, would you still vote for Oregon over CU in this option? If not, how would you justify crowning a team with 2 losses as the national champions when there are numerous other teams with only 1 loss. (that also played some pretty good teams)
The fact of the matter is, the national champion is based on the whole season, not how well you play the last two games of the season.
Also, don't forget NU held OK to zero points in the 2nd half of their game. The NU/CU game was an anomoly...
Personnally, I would have put Oregon in the championship game because they did the least not to deserve to go.

 

[Jfur]

<< Horsesh1t, politics and money, that's all it is. >>



try being stuck in the middle of the Pacific with almost no televised games

 

[Spoooon]

<< The fact of the matter is, the national champion is based on the whole season, not how well you play the last two games of the season. >>

 

[Hamburgerpimp]

try being stuck in the middle of the Pacific with almost no televised games

I guess that's the other side of it, as well.

 

[FrancesBeansRevenge]

<<

<< The fact of the matter is, the national champion is based on the whole season, not how well you play the last two games of the season. >>

>>



Really? Gee where were you when my Notre Dame was robbed at the end of the '93 season.

Notre Dame beat a supposedly unbeatable Florida State led by Charlie Ward in a #1vs#2 matchup of undefeateds in the second to last game of the year. The 'pundents' that year proclaimed Florida State as better than some NFL teams.... untouchable in the college ranks.

WELL of course Notre Dame went beat Florida State. Yay.

Then in the LAST game of the year Notre Dame is upset by Boston College on a last second 40 yard field goal.

Who got to play for the national chamionship that year? Florida State of course... despite having thier unbeatbale asses handed to them by the Irish!

PS: I miss Lou Holtz

 

[NeoV]

the difference here is the Notre Dame sucks, sucked then, suck now, and will forever suck..


Boston College beating ND is like this in what way?

Are you saying that Nebraska losing to CU is like BC beating your ND squad? No


Look, I don't think anyone is saying that CU or Oregon playing Miami solves any of this mess...like you said, if Colorado were to beat Miami, and Oregon were to beat Nebraska, then who would rightly be the #1 team?

THAT IS WHY A PLAYOFF IS NEEDED!

 

[Parrotheader]

<< Just leave everything the way it is, but add a 4 way playoff for the 4 winners of the 4 BCS bowls. That way the schools can be happy with the $$$ and we have a more clear-cut winner. >>

That's kind of along the lines of what I lean towards right now. And I also agree with your assesment that NCAA football wants to be "different and traditional."

To me that's always been the beauty of college football when compared to any other major sport. In college football EVERY game in the regular season is absolutely crucial. You can't lose a few games here and there and then squeak into the playoffs because you have just enough wins. You HAVE to be perfect in EVERY regular season game if you want to be in contention and it makes the regular season WAY more intense than other major sports IMO. Think about it this way, when you look back at an NCAA basketball season two or three years down the road hardly anybody remembers what went on in the regular season, save a monumental game here or there. But everyone will remember what happened in the tournament. To me that just seems wrong. All that hard work just to be forgotten if you happen to stumble early with a bad game in the tournament . . . . or even worse, if you get shafted by the selection committee and aren't even chosen to begin with.

And that will be an issue if football goes to a tournament, just like it is in basketball. But it will be even more magnified due to the fact that logistics realistically demand that a football playoff will probably have to be limited to 8 or 16 teams tops. There will always be teams on the fringe that get shut out due to where the cutoff line is drawn. Right now that line is drawn at two teams, a playoff would extend it back further, but there will always be those who believe they should have been chosen to have a shot. Obviously after you go back far enough, your chances of finding a sleeper decrease quickly, but the problem will always be who you have to lock out. An NIT-like tournament seems like a slap in the face to me to some 9-2/8-3 Top 25 team who played tough all year only to be sent to some 'also ran' tournament. I realize minor bowls fill this roll in the BCS formula, but at least in a minor bowl you know you only have to play one meaningless game so you can go somewhat enjoy it and maybe even make a small vacation out of it. In the NIT, if you win you unfortunately have to play again and again even though it means absolutely nothing.

One other thing about a playoff system (based on the thought of lessening the importance of the regular season) is that it will give less incentive for teams to play tougher schedules, particularly out of conference. Why would a school like Tennessee want to bother playing somebody like Oklahoma in the regular season if they could just schedule a more moderate team and have a higher probability at a win so they can make sure their record is strong enough to make it into the playoffs?

Don't get me wrong. I do see some of the benefits of a playoff system. And I recognize that the major flaw with the BCS is that it's based off the general assumption that there will always be a few standout teams each year. While that was definitely true in the past (and is still usually true in current times) scholarship restrictions are making parity a real world possibility (to some extent anyway.) Thus, it will get harder and harder for a few teams to stand out with perfect records. This year is living proof of that.

I realize my opinion is in a VERY VERY small minority judging from all the polls I've seen (something like 85% plus wanting a playoff.) And since it's late I don't have time to get into a discussion on it so I'm sure some people will dissect my comments and point out counterpoints and that's fine. It's just my opinion. I know there are logical arguments for a playoff and I respect them. I just personally like the fact that college football is a little bit different.

 

[MadRat]

<<One other thing about a playoff system (based on the thought of lessening the importance of the regular season) is that it will give less incentive for teams to play tougher schedules, particularly out of conference. Why would a school like Tennessee want to bother playing somebody like Oklahoma in the regular season if they could just schedule a more moderate team and have a higher probability at a win so they can make sure their record is strong enough to make it into the playoffs?>>

Parrotheader-

In your scenario it makes no sense for Tennessee to play tough teams. In effect you have paper tigers ruling the show. There has to be some type of NCAA-controlled matchup at the end of the season in order to weed out the paper tigers.

A one-game NIT pairing allows the NCAA to match unbeatens and further gather the "evidence" they need to know who is and who isn't "Elite 8" material. In effect it would be a round robin of one-round. It makes alot of sense.

There is no reason a one-game pairing would be too tough to do. Small colleges have been doing it for several decades. All of the other Divisions of NCAA football have to travel a week after the tournament pairings. Teams with better schedules get the home games. I see no problem with sixty to eighty teams being matched up, especially if a computer-controlled point system is used.

 

[UFGator]

NeoV, you really should argue about something when you have the SLIGHTEST clue what you're talking about.

Teams LOSE money when they go to bowl games ALL THE TIME.

And its because of TRAVEL.

Wisconsin spent 2.1 million dollars just to play in the rosebowl 3 years ago...the payout was less than that... they LOST MONEY (since you cant do the math)

The '98 Tennesee Volunteers spend MORE MONEY IN TRAVEL ALONE than the payout was for the entire bowl game.

After alumni,etc you're going to spend more in travel expenses than the bowl game paysout. If you want to push the issue, I can provide MANY MANY more examples of this with #'s, links, etc... So you can look like a fool for trying to argue something you're ignorant about.

 

[ElFenix]

anyone else wanna bet that if UNL wins we'll have two national champs this year? hell, its even thinkable that both would be from the big XII.


i hope UNL kills miami.
1. i hate miami, i think they're almost as overrated as virginia tech has been
2. i really hate the bcs. if its gonna be like this we might as well go back to the old system.
3. i like the big xii.



of course number 1 on my current college football bitch-list is chris simms. mack brown ain't real far behind. i have no clue why it took an injury to get simms out of that game. shoulda been yanked after the second INT. they tried to start him in the second half is even more unbelievable. of course, i'm certain that we'd have a 1-2 rosebowl of two undefeateds had the major started the whole year. fvck chris simms. he can't play under a stiff blitz and never has been able to. yeah, the radio guys said "texas still coulda won that game. mangum did miss a field goal from 49 yards. and BJ dropped a pass in the end zone. and that roughing the kicker penalty that led to CU's winning score." what those guys didn't mention is that none of those would have mattered if simms hadn't coughed up the ball 4 times. i don't know if i'll ever forgive him. he might carry the team on his back next year and win the national championship and i don't know if i'd forgive him. i wonder if mack brown told the punt return team to not bring pressure.

/me really should stop beating a dead horse

 

[jonley]

<< you certainly proved my point that your head is up your ass.

Re-read my post, I didn't say it wasn't all about money, the sponsors aren't the ones stopping a playoff system, you apparently are very new to the college scene since you don't know why the BCS was the chosen system for college football. >>



The reason BCS is the chosen system is for $$$. Because of this system, every college game (for atleast the big schools) is of a playoff potential. So high ratings throught the season instead of only during the playoffs (as in NCAA hoops).
This is the ONLY reason for BCS. Plain and simple.

 

[FrancesBeansRevenge]

<< the difference here is the Notre Dame sucks, sucked then, suck now, and will forever suck..
>>



Yes... the program with the MOST national championships and the MOST Heisman winners in history of college football to its credit has always sucked..... uh huh

Sure, in recent history they have been average at best.... but that will change. George O'Leary is a great coach and I am sure he will be able to restore some luster to the golden dome.



<< Boston College beating ND is like this in what way?

Are you saying that Nebraska losing to CU is like BC beating your ND squad? No >>



Hmmm my post was in direct response to the statement quoted. Where exactly do I equate these two situations? Can you read?

But I will now! hehehe ..... yes I do think the situations are similar.... if not weighted in ND's favor. First, ND had beaten the #1 team in the nation the week before... a team everyone was delaring the best in the history of the universe (rofl)... Nebraska's most recent impressive win was 3 weeks before they were DESTROYED and HUMILIATED by Colorado..... Notre Dame's loss to BC was a classic emotional letdown.... the week after beating the 'unbeatable' #1 they were flat against BC and lost on a last second feild goal... not by oh 5 touchdowns or so that Nebraska lost by.

Florida State finished #1 over a team that had beaten them a few weeks before. Pfffft.

 

[mithrandir2001]

<< Wisconsin spent 2.1 million dollars just to play in the rosebowl 3 years ago...The '98 Tennesee Volunteers spend MORE MONEY IN TRAVEL ALONE than the payout was for the entire bowl game. >>


These schools need to start using priceline.

 

[Ne0]

Bcs brackets

Just my little pic of brackets, if we had a bcs playoff.

 

[orty]

I'm pretty miffed about this, too. Despite the fact that I work for a Lincoln, NE, based company, I live in Oregon, and graduated from there, and I've always been a Duck fan. I've always hated Nebraska football.

And when I saw that Oregon was #2 in BOTH of the major non-BCS polls, and yet didn't get put into the national championship, I was pretty damn mad. Colorado's a good team. Nebraska's a good team. Oregon's a good team. However, Oregon's only lost one game (and only by a few points to Stanford) but won the Pac-10, Nebraska got their asses handed to them on platter by Colorado and didn't win their conference, Colorado went on to win their conference, despite losses to Fresno State and Texas. So they lost two games (and they got creamed by Texas).

So we have three teams who could play Miami:
1) A team that won their conf. championship, but lost two games earlier in the year.
2) A team that got it's ass whooped by a conference foe and didn't win their conference championship
3) A team that only lost one game to a pretty dang good team, and won their conference championship.

Personally, I'd pick number three.

What gets me is how those computers rank folks. That's what killed Oregon and Colorado both. Many of those computers put Oregon down at like 7 or 8. Many of those computers don't even make public their formulas and math for their rankings, not taking accountability for their decisions. Hell, those programs that do that could VERY easily have something like this in their program:

if florida_school||nebraska
{
total_points=total_points - 5
}

My thoughts on how to fix this (basically agreeing with MadRat's earlier post):

Keep a BCS-like ranking system, and get 8 teams. Play them in the typical playoff format (1 vs. 8, 2 vs. 7, etc...), and there would only be three weeks worth of games, with the championship being on Jan. 1st. They can EASILY start the play off on Dec. 15, and still have the game on New Year's.

Now the NCAA will be up in arms..."We only allow these guys to play a certain amount of games per season". Then cut out a lot of those pre-season "We'll play some Division III school" bullsh!t. Does Nebraska need to play Troy State? Hell no....does Oregon need to play the Utah schools? Hell no...does Colorado need to play San Jose? No...they're not even in their league...

Get rid of the crap games, play only league/local games (screw the money involved for those smaller schools, but still keep games like CU and CSU, as they're civil war games, despite being in different conferences), then you still have PLENTY of time for those 3 championship games. Make the champion EARN their prize...none of this "The polls will pick us the winner" crap.

OK, I'm done ranting...thanks for letting me get that off my chest

EDIT: one last rant...any other year, Oregon would be playing in the Rose Bowl because of the fact that they're the Pac-10 champs, but since it's the Rose Bowl's turn in the BCS rotation, we get sent to Arizona...zippity-frickin'-doo-dah...

-orty