Warrior General Games

Originally posted by jdbolick
Originally posted by LionsLover

It's called a playoff system... but NCAA is against it because they lose out on the cash cow called Bowl Games.
Actually the experts agree that a college football playoff would earn vastly more money than the bowl games, which is pretty obvious once you think about the fact that a playoff would have a higher total number of games. There are a number of other reasons to be against a playoff, but it has nothing to do with money.

I'm not sure on more games. I think it will remain about the same in the best scenario. There are currently 17 divisions (including independent) in NCAA 1, which likely means one division will have to miss out a year (due to record, and tiebreakers come down to point spread). Then you have a 16 team tourney, 8 first round games, 4 2nd, then 2 for semis, then 1 for the championship. 15 games is a little less than the 34 Bowl games that are available (I think there are 2 that don't always occur). If they decide to do a 32 team tourney it still comes out to 31 games.

* On a side note... I never realized that in an even tournement there will be 1 less game than teams entered... very interesting.

The proposed playoff systems wouldn't eliminate the lesser bowls. You'd still have all those for the qualified teams who didn't finish in the top 8 or 16. So you'd have the same beginning number of games, plus the extra playoff contests.

Originally posted by jdbolick
The proposed playoff systems wouldn't eliminate the lesser bowls. You'd still have all those for the qualified teams who didn't finish in the top 8 or 16. So you'd have the same beginning number of games, plus the extra playoff contests.

or some of the playoff games would replace the bowls. For example, the final 8 teams could play in the top 4 BCS bowls with the winner playing the Title Bowl or something (Super Bowl would be perfect, but for some reason, I think some other organization is using it - God Bless Lamar Hunt)

Originally posted by jdbolick
The proposed playoff systems wouldn't eliminate the lesser bowls. You'd still have all those for the qualified teams who didn't finish in the top 8 or 16. So you'd have the same beginning number of games, plus the extra playoff contests.

In that instance they have no reason to not do a playoff system. a 32 system would be most accurate, giving each league 2 entries (minus independent and 1 other league). I see no other reason for keeping the BCS as is then.

Originally posted by LionsLover
In that instance they have no reason to not do a playoff system. a 32 system would be most accurate, giving each league 2 entries (minus independent and 1 other league). I see no other reason for keeping the BCS as is then.
Yours is a common view, and I've wasted a lot of time on the internet trying to educate people who really haven't thought about the issue. In any case, there are myriad reasons why a playoff is a bad idea.

#1) There will always be controversy about who gets in.

The BCS is essentially a two team, one game playoff for the national championship. For all the whining we hear now about which two teams should get those spots, that would only be magnified the more you increased the pool. There are tons of teams each year with only two losses, so how do you fairly and equitably decide which of those two loss teams get in an eight team tournament if not by eyeballing them the way that the BCS does now? And if you expand to 16, then there are even more three loss teams. The idea that a playoff would end controversy is nonsense.


#2) The regular season would be dramatically devalued.

If we had a playoff, West Virginia's loss to Pittsburgh on the last day of the regular season wouldn't have mattered at all. Neither would Ohio State's loss to USC this season. Any Saturday in college football has a million times more tension than the following Sunday for the NFL precisely because every game in college football matters. There is a feeling that you're just one loss away from losing your shot, which leads to constant drama. If all you had to do was finish in the top 16 or so, then those occasional upsets wouldn't mean much at all. You can already see this in college basketball where hardly anyone pays attention to anything besides rivalries until the tournaments begin.


#3) Football is a game of luck and match-ups. Is Oregon State a better team than USC? No, of course not. They were better on one night, which was pretty awesome to watch, but anyone instinctively knows that you look at the full body of work to see that USC is superior even though Oregon State beat them. Oregon State just happened to match-up well with USC, while someone like Ohio State did not. Team A might beat Team B 9 out of 10 times, but lose to Team C 9 of ten times, even if Team B also beats Team C 9 out of 10 times. The same is true in GLB. If one of our teams has a great set of linebackers but a suspect secondary, they might dominate someone who depended on the running game while losing to someone who relied on the passing game. Individual games do not prove season-long superiority, seasons do.


#4) Playoffs don't work, at least not if your goal is to find out who really was the best team. The St. Louis Cardinals won the World Series in 2006 even though they were not good at all during the regular season. They just happened to get hot in October. In fact, the team with the best regular season record has won the World Series only seven times in the 39 years since additional playoff rounds were added. The same thing is true when you look at college basketball. Only once in the last sixty years have the #1 and #2 teams faced each other in the championship game. Now I freely admit that those rankings don't always seem to be accurate, but unless you mean to tell me that they have only picked the top two teams right once in sixty years, then playoffs don't do a good job of making the best teams advance.

In fact, we already know that if you think about it. The whole concept of "upsets" is rooted in the idea that it is possible for the better team to lose. It happens practically every week of any season. So the idea that one single game or even a single series can definitively tell you who is better just makes no sense. The New York Giants were not even close to the best team in football last season, but they got hot in January and ran the table. And this year they look like they might be the best team, or certainly one of them, and yet I'd put money on them not winning the Super Bowl this time around. There's way too much luck involved to be confident about one team beating all others.


Look, obviously we as fans want some kind of "big finish" to any sport's season, but I think the bowl games are a phenomenal way to do that. In the NCAA tournament, every team and their fans are disappointed except for one. In the bowl games, however, you can go 7-5 and still feel like a million bucks if you win your last game. And ask NASCAR fans if the "Race to the Chase" has made their sport better. Playoffs do generate excitement and attention, but at least for college football, I think they would ruin a lot of what I like best about the sport.

Originally posted by jdbolick
Originally posted by LionsLover

In that instance they have no reason to not do a playoff system. a 32 system would be most accurate, giving each league 2 entries (minus independent and 1 other league). I see no other reason for keeping the BCS as is then.
Yours is a common view, and I've wasted a lot of time on the internet trying to educate people who really haven't thought about the issue. In any case, there are myriad reasons why a playoff is a bad idea.

#1) There will always be controversy about who gets in.

The BCS is essentially a two team, one game playoff for the national championship. For all the whining we hear now about which two teams should get those spots, that would only be magnified the more you increased the pool. There are tons of teams each year with only two losses, so how do you fairly and equitably decide which of those two loss teams get in an eight team tournament if not by eyeballing them the way that the BCS does now? And if you expand to 16, then there are even more three loss teams. The idea that a playoff would end controversy is nonsense.


#2) The regular season would be dramatically devalued.

If we had a playoff, West Virginia's loss to Pittsburgh on the last day of the regular season wouldn't have mattered at all. Neither would Ohio State's loss to USC this season. Any Saturday in college football has a million times more tension than the following Sunday for the NFL precisely because every game in college football matters. There is a feeling that you're just one loss away from losing your shot, which leads to constant drama. If all you had to do was finish in the top 16 or so, then those occasional upsets wouldn't mean much at all. You can already see this in college basketball where hardly anyone pays attention to anything besides rivalries until the tournaments begin.


#3) Football is a game of luck and match-ups. Is Oregon State a better team than USC? No, of course not. They were better on one night, which was pretty awesome to watch, but anyone instinctively knows that you look at the full body of work to see that USC is superior even though Oregon State beat them. Oregon State just happened to match-up well with USC, while someone like Ohio State did not. Team A might beat Team B 9 out of 10 times, but lose to Team C 9 of ten times, even if Team B also beats Team C 9 out of 10 times. The same is true in GLB. If one of our teams has a great set of linebackers but a suspect secondary, they might dominate someone who depended on the running game while losing to someone who relied on the passing game. Individual games do not prove season-long superiority, seasons do.


#4) Playoffs don't work, at least not if your goal is to find out who really was the best team. The St. Louis Cardinals won the World Series in 2006 even though they were not good at all during the regular season. They just happened to get hot in October. In fact, the team with the best regular season record has won the World Series only seven times in the 39 years since additional playoff rounds were added. The same thing is true when you look at college basketball. Only once in the last sixty years have the #1 and #2 teams faced each other in the championship game. Now I freely admit that those rankings don't always seem to be accurate, but unless you mean to tell me that they have only picked the top two teams right once in sixty years, then playoffs don't do a good job of making the best teams advance.

In fact, we already know that if you think about it. The whole concept of "upsets" is rooted in the idea that it is possible for the better team to lose. It happens practically every week of any season. So the idea that one single game or even a single series can definitively tell you who is better just makes no sense. The New York Giants were not even close to the best team in football last season, but they got hot in January and ran the table. And this year they look like they might be the best team, or certainly one of them, and yet I'd put money on them not winning the Super Bowl this time around. There's way too much luck involved to be confident about one team beating all others.


Look, obviously we as fans want some kind of "big finish" to any sport's season, but I think the bowl games are a phenomenal way to do that. In the NCAA tournament, every team and their fans are disappointed except for one. In the bowl games, however, you can go 7-5 and still feel like a million bucks if you win your last game. And ask NASCAR fans if the "Race to the Chase" has made their sport better. Playoffs do generate excitement and attention, but at least for college football, I think they would ruin a lot of what I like best about the sport.

Well by some of that logic, BCS kills itself as well. There is always controversy about the championship game. With a playoff system there is a definitive "winner", whether they are the best team or not.

The regular season would lose a little value, I concede that. But it's not too devalued, you still have to be the best in your conference. I'm not a huge college fan, but if teams start playing everyone in their conference like NFL teams, a tiebreaker could be H2H or W/L in conference. Some conferences would have to be restructured so they will be competitive, but that's a small price to pay.

There is no definitive way of determining who is better. You honestly cannot tell me the Giants were the best team in the nation last season. This supports the BCS theory. But you can't determine who is best with a single championship team either. Ohio State went to the championship game and lost twice in a row. Neither season did I feel they were championship material, they just had weaker schedules. Their prestige got them there. While I agree playoffs don't always determine who the best team is, but it does show you who the best team is RIGHT NOW. They have to fight hard all season long to get wins, they can have a couple slip ups and still win it all. I think a playoff system would be more accurate in determining who the best team is than a single championship game.

I think the fact the college is the only place where football is not a playoff sport undermines the sport itself. I wouldn't mind if this was the way high school was done, I don't think kids that young need to compete so much as learn the game. But at the college level I think competitiveness is more important. This is just a cashcow for universities as is. Nothing is determined. I do believe college football generates just as much if not more money than the NFL.

Originally posted by LionsLover
Well by some of that logic, BCS kills itself as well. There is always controversy about the championship game. With a playoff system there is a definitive "winner", whether they are the best team or not.
My point is that controversy will ensue regardless of what kind of system you use, and therefore controversy should never be a reason to change it. And no, there is absolutely not a "definitive winner" in a playoff format, at least not any more than there is with the current BCS model. The winner of the BCS has to "win it on the field" versus the other BCS championship opponent, exactly the same as they would in a playoff. But the advantage of the BCS is that you can reward teams for what they did during the full college football regular season rather than just having the whole thing come down to being "hot" for the few weeks a playoff would take.
Originally posted by
The regular season would lose a little value, I concede that. But it's not too devalued, you still have to be the best in your conference.
No you wouldn't. The SEC had five teams in the preseason top 10 and the Big 12 has four teams in the top 10 right now. In fact, it's easy to imagine a scenario where a team loses its conference championship game but then wins a national championship playoff. Obviously that happens pretty frequently in the NCAA tournament.
Originally posted by
There is no definitive way of determining who is better.
It is subjective, which is precisely my point. The people who argue that a playoff will definitively determine the "best team" are fooling themselves. It won't, at least not any better than the BCS does, and I would argue that the BCS is better because the full regular season is being valued instead of the outcome depending upon only a handful of games.
Originally posted by
Ohio State went to the championship game and lost twice in a row. Neither season did I feel they were championship material, they just had weaker schedules.
You are not telling the truth. Practically everyone in America thought Ohio State was the best college football team in 2006 before the championship game against Florida. They were the unanimous #1 team not only in the USA Today Coaches' poll, but the AP poll as well. Everyone thought they were the best because they had actually played a very tough schedule that included beating the University of Texas in Austin. They lost anyway because football is unpredictable, but the Buckeyes unquestionably deserved to be in the title game in 2006. Despite the tough schedule, they were the only 1-A team in the nation besides Boise State.
Originally posted by
While I agree playoffs don't always determine who the best team is, but it does show you who the best team is RIGHT NOW.
No, it absolutely does not. Do you honestly think that Oregon State is better than USC "RIGHT NOW"? No, even though Oregon State beat them last week. Upsets happen.
Originally posted by
I think a playoff system would be more accurate in determining who the best team is than a single championship game.
The problem is that you really haven't thought about the issue. You've embraced a popular conclusion that you've never really thought about, meanwhile I've actually done the research to find out how often the best regular season teams in each sport make it to the end of a playoff, and as I showed above, they usually don't. To win a playoff, you've usually got to be lucky. Believe me, I understand that it's easy to accept the idea that a playoff would be more accurate because so many people have said that, but it's because those people haven't thought about it either.
Originally posted by
I think the fact the college is the only place where football is not a playoff sport undermines the sport itself.
That's total B.S. College football is more popular than ever and arguably the most popular sport in America. Meanwhile, as I said, college basketball is only popular when those tournaments roll around.
Originally posted by
This is just a cashcow for universities as is.
Why are you repeating reasoning that I've already disproven? The fact is that a playoff would earn more money for universities, not less. It's not about the money and never has been.

OMG......Again? Damn

Originally posted by jdbolick
Originally posted by LionsLover

Well by some of that logic, BCS kills itself as well. There is always controversy about the championship game. With a playoff system there is a definitive "winner", whether they are the best team or not.
My point is that controversy will ensue regardless of what kind of system you use, and therefore controversy should never be a reason to change it. And no, there is absolutely not a "definitive winner" in a playoff format, at least not any more than there is with the current BCS model. The winner of the BCS has to "win it on the field" versus the other BCS championship opponent, exactly the same as they would in a playoff. But the advantage of the BCS is that you can reward teams for what they did during the full college football regular season rather than just having the whole thing come down to being "hot" for the few weeks a playoff would take.
Originally posted by

The regular season would lose a little value, I concede that. But it's not too devalued, you still have to be the best in your conference.
No you wouldn't. The SEC had five teams in the preseason top 10 and the Big 12 has four teams in the top 10 right now. In fact, it's easy to imagine a scenario where a team loses its conference championship game but then wins a national championship playoff. Obviously that happens pretty frequently in the NCAA tournament.
Originally posted by

There is no definitive way of determining who is better.
It is subjective, which is precisely my point. The people who argue that a playoff will definitively determine the "best team" are fooling themselves. It won't, at least not any better than the BCS does, and I would argue that the BCS is better because the full regular season is being valued instead of the outcome depending upon only a handful of games.
Originally posted by

Ohio State went to the championship game and lost twice in a row. Neither season did I feel they were championship material, they just had weaker schedules.
You are not telling the truth. Practically everyone in America thought Ohio State was the best college football team in 2006 before the championship game against Florida. They were the unanimous #1 team not only in the USA Today Coaches' poll, but the AP poll as well. Everyone thought they were the best because they had actually played a very tough schedule that included beating the University of Texas in Austin. They lost anyway because football is unpredictable, but the Buckeyes unquestionably deserved to be in the title game in 2006. Despite the tough schedule, they were the only 1-A team in the nation besides Boise State.
Originally posted by

While I agree playoffs don't always determine who the best team is, but it does show you who the best team is RIGHT NOW.
No, it absolutely does not. Do you honestly think that Oregon State is better than USC "RIGHT NOW"? No, even though Oregon State beat them last week. Upsets happen.
Originally posted by

I think a playoff system would be more accurate in determining who the best team is than a single championship game.
The problem is that you really haven't thought about the issue. You've embraced a popular conclusion that you've never really thought about, meanwhile I've actually done the research to find out how often the best regular season teams in each sport make it to the end of a playoff, and as I showed above, they usually don't. To win a playoff, you've usually got to be lucky. Believe me, I understand that it's easy to accept the idea that a playoff would be more accurate because so many people have said that, but it's because those people haven't thought about it either.
Originally posted by

I think the fact the college is the only place where football is not a playoff sport undermines the sport itself.
That's total B.S. College football is more popular than ever and arguably the most popular sport in America. Meanwhile, as I said, college basketball is only popular when those tournaments roll around.
Originally posted by

This is just a cashcow for universities as is.
Why are you repeating reasoning that I've already disproven? The fact is that a playoff would earn more money for universities, not less. It's not about the money and never has been.

You get WAY into this. Emotional even. Chill. Just giving my opinions.\

There is a definitive winner in a playoff system. From playoff week 1 to endgame, the winner has beaten all opposition, whether through defeating them personally, or through another team that had beaten them. Is it the best team always? No. But it is definitive. 32 teams had a chance. They had no one to blame but themselves. I hear a lot less complaining about the Giants winning the Superbowl than I do about LSU winning the national championship.

the point of the playoffs is to take the 2 best teams in each conference (for 32 team playoffs) There is no way the #4 team in the SEC will make it to the playoffs. THAT is what would make the playoffs better IMO. Rearrange the conferences a little to make it competitive, like 2-3 big name schools in a conference, and then let it go from there. there is a much better chance of determining a true champion in a playoff system than a ranking system where a good portion is opinion based.

And I was not lying when I said I felt Ohio State was not championship material. I felt there were many better teams in 2006 (I even think Michigan was better, they should not have lost that game) Which proves another point for playoffs. Michigan and Ohio State were the best 2 teams in their conference, and had a playoff system been in place, it gives that team an extra shot. In the BCS you lose once and your pretty much done. That's not 100% true, but close enough.

Yes, I do think Oregan State was better than USC on that day, hence the meaning of RIGHT NOW.

You have done your research, but have you taken into account that gameplanning isn't possible for some teams early in the season? After a full season teams can completely gameplan for their opponents. If you lose game 1 in a regular season matchup in BCS to a team that is hardly championship material, you will fall far down the BCS. Even one week of game film can immensely change your gameplan. Who's to say that a team can't become better after that single loss? Example: Applachian State over Michigan. Do you really think Michigan would lose again? If that had been their only loss of the season, do you think they would have went to the championship game? Hardly. Losing to an unranked team early, especially AA would cause their stock to drop hard. Even if it was the best AA team.

I agree college football is one of the most popular sports in America, but do you really think even for one second it has anything to do with the BCS? No, it does not. People can RELATE to college teams, be it they know people from the school, they went there, they live there. NFL teams are much harder to relate to, because it's rare to know someone that plays in the NFL, or to have been there yourself. SO you have about 1/3 of the ability to relate to NFL franchises than you do to college franchises. I don't watch the NBA, but I watch some NCAA basketball when Tennessee or Bucknell plays. Why? I'm from Bucknell's town (Lewisburg) and my best friend goes to Tennessee. The stature of college football has NOTHING to do with the BCS.

There is no concrete evidence either way to prove what will generate more income, BCS or playoffs. There will be less playoff games than Bowl games. So unless sponsers pay more to be the sponser of a playoff game, I don't see how that can be financially more profitable.

You don't need to quote my entire posts, as that clutters the thread. It would be better if you quoted the portions you're responding to or else just put my name on the top (jdbolick:) to make it clear you're addressing me.


Originally posted by LionsLover
You get WAY into this. Emotional even. Chill. Just giving my opinions.
That's fine, but at the same time you have to understand that some people are correct and some people are wrong. Opinions are not created equal. I have friends and family members who share your point of view because they haven't really thought about the issue either, so it's not like I think less of you because you're wrong.
Originally posted by
There is a definitive winner in a playoff system.
No, there isn't. I have already explained this to you and I would prefer not to keep doing so. The winner of the BCS has to win its final game to be crowned the champion, correct? That's the same scenario as an expanded playoff, only you're adding more games (which would probably mean fewer regular season games, by the way). The BCS is essentially a two team playoff where the winner is crowned on the field. Expanding that field to four or eight or even sixteen teams doesn't substantively change the process.
Originally posted by
I hear a lot less complaining about the Giants winning the Superbowl than I do about LSU winning the national championship.
Have you ever heard of the "mob mentality?" People complain about many things, and often they aren't correct in their complaints because it's not about that, it's about exercising frustrations.
Originally posted by
the point of the playoffs is to take the 2 best teams in each conference
No one has proposed a playoff with only two teams from every conference because a true college football fan would immediately recognize that as just ridiculous. What you describe has not been under any consideration by anyone. The playoff systems that have been proposed would not be limited to a certain number of teams per conference, they would be determined by rankings, so yes the #4 SEC team would probably get in if the initial pool was made up of 16 teams.
Originally posted by
Rearrange the conferences a little to make it competitive
No offense, but if you propose nonsense that will never ever be accepted, then what's the point of talking about it at all? The conferences would absolutely never agree to rearranging themselves like that and every college football fan knows it.
Originally posted by
there is a much better chance of determining a true champion in a playoff system than a ranking system where a good portion is opinion based.
No, it isn't. I have already proven you wrong about this. The fact is that playoff systems throughout history in all sports have consistently produced different "champions" than the teams considered superior during the regular season. In baseball, the "best team" from the regular season almost never wins the World Series. In the NFL, the team with the best regular season record rarely wins the Super Bowl. In the NBA, the team with the best regular season record rarely wins the NBA championship. In college basketball, the team ranked #1 going into the NCAA tournament rarely wins it.
Originally posted by
And I was not lying when I said I felt Ohio State was not championship material. I felt there were many better teams in 2006
As I said, Ohio State was ranked a unanimous #1 in both the USA Today Coaches' Poll and the AP Poll. SI and ESPN were discussing whether or not the Buckeyes were one of the best college football teams in history. They beat the (at that time) #2 ranked Texas Longhorns in Austin, Texas during the regular season and crushed their Big Ten competition aside from the last game against Michigan.

The idea that you, a person who admittedly pays little attention to college football, would somehow know more than a unanimous national media, well, I think you can see why that seems ridiculous. That said, I'm not accusing you of knowingly lying. I think your memory is lying to you and you're sticking by that instead of your common sense. I imagine that you think you did doubt OSU back then because you can't remember how you felt in 2006, you can only remember how you felt in 2007 because there were a lot of doubters then. The fact that you said that Ohio State played a weak schedule in 2006 when they actually played one of the toughest schedules in the nation proves what I'm saying about your memory lying to you.
Originally posted by
Michigan and Ohio State were the best 2 teams in their conference, and had a playoff system been in place, it gives that team an extra shot. In the BCS you lose once and your pretty much done. That's not 100% true, but close enough.
Considering that the very argument for a playoff is based on the idea that a team only has to beat someone once to be "definitively better," you're contradicting yourself. I believe you're talking out of both sides of your mouth because you realize from my argument that you're wrong and that you really hadn't thought about the issue, but instead of choosing to acknowledge that you're wrong, you're grasping at straws to keep arguing a point you already know isn't valid. Unfortunately most people respond that way to being wrong.
Originally posted by
Yes, I do think Oregan State was better than USC on that day
They weren't. Upsets are cherished because they're occasions when the lesser team wins through some combination of luck and effort.
Originally posted by
You have done your research, but have you taken into account that gameplanning isn't possible for some teams early in the season?
I hope you don't take too much offense at me saying so, but this statement shows that you don't know much about coaching. It doesn't take the four or five weeks of a bowl layoff to plan for an opponent. Coaches are constantly reviewing film and they are prepared for every opponent, every week.
Originally posted by
Example: Applachian State over Michigan.
You just argued that Oregon State was "a better team" than USC last Thursday because they beat them then, but now you want to say that Michigan was really better than Appalachian State (which I agree with) but that they didn't have enough time to gameplan. They had all off-season to gameplan, as it was their first game of the season. ASU didn't change their offense from the previous season, so Michigan wasn't surprised by what they faced. It was an upset, and as I keep saying, upsets are when inferior teams beat a superior team. It happens.
Originally posted by
I agree college football is one of the most popular sports in America, but do you really think even for one second it has anything to do with the BCS?
Yes, of course it does. You have already admitted that you don't follow college football so you don't understand why that's true. I've already pointed out that college basketball doesn't get much attention during its regular season because fans know that the tournaments are all that really matters. Meanwhile college football is enormously popular throughout its regular season precisely because each game matters so much. An expanded playoff system would undermine that.
Originally posted by
There is no concrete evidence either way to prove what will generate more income, BCS or playoffs.
The NCAA, ESPN, SI, and other entities have done studies examining the economic impact of proposed playoff systems and they all concluded that playoffs would generate more revenue than the current bowl system.


Again, I have friends and family members who share your point of view because they haven't thought about the issue either. In fact, your position is obviously the majority opinion. Most people believe that a playoff would be better, but those people are also wrong. It's a "mob mentality" where a conclusion is widely embraced without sufficient consideration. When you actually look at the ramifications, that becomes clear, and I have the facts to show that.

OK, I think your reading some of what I say out of context. There are no right and wrong answers here.
I said Oregan was the better team "that day" and Appalacian State was better "that day" as well. Do I think either team was better? Not really. I do think USC is overrated, even with the amount of talent they have.

When I say the playoffs have a definitive winner, they do. Is it the best team always? No. But it is definitive. In the BCS you take the top 2 rated teams. but what if the top 4 teams are undefeated? Obviously they didn't play each other. So who is really better? Hawaii went undefeated 2 years in a row, and didn't even crack the top 10. Who is to say they couldn't have won the national championship? Sure they got pummeled by Georgia I think in a Bowl game. But really, who's to say they didn't match up better vs Ohio St? We can never know, which is why if they had beaten Georgia, we never would know anything. With a playoff system, at least they could have a chance. Sun Belt teams have almost 0% chance to be in the Championship game. What if by some anomoly they recruit all the best players for 1 season (before they transfer elsewhere)? They will get ranked up to about #10, then win a meaningless Bowl game. No shot at the Championship. Quality of opponent will drag them down. With a playoff system, they have a chance.

No offense to anyone who watches ESPN, but half of what they say is garbage. I don't trust anything they say unless it's factual. Only Mel Kiper. Otherwise, if it's a prediction or estimation, I ignore it. Because more often than not they don't know anything.

Oh, and I know for certain I thought OSU was overrated. In fact I had bet 500 dollars in an office pool that they would not win the championship game. I remember getting verbally bashed because "they were the best team in college football". I may not always be right in my opinions, but I don't forget my own opinions. Last season I predicted the Giants to go to the SB when the playoff schedules were complete, and no one believed me then either. I had picked the Pats for the SB, but I was rooting for the Giants. Only SB I've ever mis-predicted. My opinions rarely coincide with the "popular choice". But it's based on what I see, not what I am told.

I'll leave the whole BCS makes college football what it is alone. I still think it's wrong though.

Finally
Originally posted by jdbolick
Originally posted by
the point of the playoffs is to take the 2 best teams in each conference
No one has proposed a playoff with only two teams from every conference because a true college football fan would immediately recognize that as just ridiculous. What you describe has not been under any consideration by anyone. The playoff systems that have been proposed would not be limited to a certain number of teams per conference, they would be determined by rankings, so yes the #4 SEC team would probably get in if the initial pool was made up of 16 teams.
Originally posted by
Rearrange the conferences a little to make it competitive
No offense, but if you propose nonsense that will never ever be accepted, then what's the point of talking about it at all? The conferences would absolutely never agree to rearranging themselves like that and every college football fan knows it.
I never said it has been suggested. I think this is how it should be done to get the most accurate results. Otherwise it is still mostly opinion based. if 16 teams enter, teams in the lower conferences will still likely be left out occasionally, even if they have better teams.

Originally posted by LionsLover
There are no right and wrong answers here.
In my experience, the only people who insist that there are no right or wrong answers are the people who are afraid of being called wrong.
Originally posted by
better "that day"
That's a total cop-out, but more than that, it's wrong. The idea that the better team always wins is obviously nonsense. Again, the whole concept of "upsets" is based on the idea that sometimes the "better team" loses.
Originally posted by
When I say the playoffs have a definitive winner, they do.
Only in the same sense that the BCS does. The BCS champion isn't just determined by the ratings. The two top teams actually play each other and the champion has to earn that title on the field. It's the same scenario whether you choose two teams or eight or sixteen, the only difference is how many rounds you're using.
Originally posted by
Hawaii went undefeated 2 years in a row, and didn't even crack the top 10. Who is to say they couldn't have won the national championship?
Anyone who watched them play, that's who. Clearly you have to put value in what a team does during the regular season, but by the same token, you can't just look at a team's record precisely because not all schedules are equal. Hawaii played no good teams and nearly lost to several bad ones. Subjective analysis is going to come into play when choosing teams regardless of whether you're only choosing the top two or if you're choosing the top eight.
Originally posted by
No offense to anyone who watches ESPN, but half of what they say is garbage. I don't trust anything they say unless it's factual. Only Mel Kiper.
It's funny that you single out Mel Kiper for trust because one of the things I do for a living is to write analysis of college players making the jump to the pros, and Kiper really isn't very good at it. I get your point that you shouldn't take any source as gospel, and I agree with you about that, but it's not just ESPN saying that a playoff would earn more money. Every entity who has conducted a study on the proposal has come to that same conclusion. Similarly, every media outlet agreed that Ohio State was the best team in college football by far during the 2006 regular season. They earned that praise by dominating a very tough schedule.
Originally posted by
Oh, and I know for certain I thought OSU was overrated.
I think you're lying. There's just no one way that someone who doesn't follow college football, which you admitted, would somehow come to such an unusual conclusion.
Originally posted by
Last season I predicted the Giants to go to the SB when the playoff schedules were complete, and no one believed me then either. I had picked the Pats for the SB, but I was rooting for the Giants. Only SB I've ever mis-predicted.
Yeah, now I know that you're lying. In the future, if you want anyone to think that you're the slightest bit credible, try to make your lies a little more believable. Saying that you've never been wrong about the Super Bowl in your entire life except for this last one is too ridiculous for anyone to believe. Clearly you love yourself and want everyone to believe that you're omniscient and infallible, which is why you have a pathological inability to admit you're wrong even when someone proves it.

You know, I don't care if you think I'm lying. I know that I am not. I don't care what people think here. I haven't posted anything wrong in this thread, you just take it as being wrong because you think you are right. Call me a liar all you want, does it make you feel good? Does it make your penis bigger? I think your the one who has the ability to admit being wrong, not I.

Does anyone else think that LionsLover is 16 or so? I would bet money that his "wife" and "kid" are cover for having multiple accounts. There is absolutely no way that someone who posts like he does is as old as he claims to be.

Seriously, we're supposed to believe that his "wife" would name herself crackbubba? Come on. The guy is a cheat.

actually, i do believe him,,,,,,,,
and yes

and really. if it is that big of a deal for you to argue with a 16 year old, then stop.