Lost in all of the BCS hand-wringing

[huskrthill]

is the likelihood that Alabama and LSU would have played for the championship no matter what system was in place. If they had each played one more game (against Oklahoma State and Stanford?), would that have made a rematch more legitimate?

Why? It still would have been the same two teams that faced off earlier in the season. It still would have been undefeated LSU vs one-loss Alabama. After 14 games, would one more game have made a difference?

[ThotDoc]

yes, it would have seemed more legitimate.

[redarmy]

is the likelihood that Alabama and LSU would have played for the championship no matter what system was in place. If they had each played one more game (against Oklahoma State and Stanford?), would that have made a rematch more legitimate?

Why? It still would have been the same two teams that faced off earlier in the season. It still would have been undefeated LSU vs one-loss Alabama. After 14 games, would one more game have made a difference?

based on some of the comments I have read, there are those who think OSU and Oregon could have beaten LSU now. Because we all know that OSU and Oregon both have outstanding defenses that could have made LSU look as silly as Bama did. If I am not mistaken, Oregon had their chance to beat LSU earlier this year while LSU had several key players out on suspension and we all know how that turned out.

[ColoREDo]

yes, it would have seemed more legitimate.

Very much so.

[ThotDoc]

based on some of the comments I have read, there are those who think OSU and Oregon could have beaten LSU now. Because we all know that OSU and Oregon both have outstanding defenses that could have made LSU look as silly as Bama did. If I am not mistaken, Oregon had their chance to beat LSU earlier this year while LSU had several key players out on suspension and we all know how that turned out.

I'm not sure Oregon is in the discussion. A +1 would have had Stanford, Okie St, Alab, and LSU.

[ColoREDo]

I'm not sure Oregon is in the discussion. A +1 would have had Stanford, Okie St, Alab, and LSU.

I would love to see OSU attack the Alabama defense. They might struggle, but they also might make some big plays. Its intriguing. On the other hand, I also liked watching two great defenses go at it last night as well. Alabama's D is monstrous. I shudder to think how Martinez would have looked going up against that.

[Red Reign]

Problem is you don't know that Thill....its pure speculation on your part....unless its played on the field we will never know....and thats why more and more and more folks refuse to watch the BCS....

So yeah who ever got through the playoffs it would have been more legitimate...and folks are voting by not watching the BCS and that in the end will change the system....$$$ are the bottom line...

[huskrthill]

Problem is you don't know that Thill....its pure speculation on your part....unless its played on the field we will never know....and thats why more and more and more folks refuse to watch the BCS....

So yeah who ever got through the playoffs it would have been more legitimate...and folks are voting by not watching the BCS and that in the end will change the system....$$$ are the bottom line...

But even when it is decided on the field, people won't accept the results. See last night's game for an example.

[Red Reign]

Yes they will....

But even when it is decided on the field, people won't accept the results. See last night's game for an example.

[ThotDoc]

But even when it is decided on the field, people won't accept the results. See last night's game for an example.

I think they will. People generally accept the winner of the playoffs in all the other football divisions, and the Super Bowl, and the basketball tournament, etc.

[HuskerJAG]

But even when it is decided on the field, people won't accept the results. See last night's game for an example.

I think they would. It's not the result from last night, it was the process that created the matchup. If the two teams were to have met in a playoff involving more than the two teams, it would have been much more acceptable.

[huskrthill]

I think they will. People generally accept the winner of the playoffs in all the other football divisions, and the Super Bowl, and the basketball tournament, etc.

How many teams are required for it to count as a "playoff?" The top two seeds played yesterday.

I wasn't alive when this was the case, but major league baseball's postseason used to consist of just the World Series, with the two best teams competing for the crown. The NFL didn't even have a championship game, and instead just awarded their championship to the team with the best record. Eventually, they had the top two teams play for the championship.

Those sports have changed their formats because their league structure allows them to do so and still maintain relative competitive equality in their divisions/conferences. Major college football can't do that without a complete and total realignment.

[huskrthill]

I think they would. It's not the result from last night, it was the process that created the matchup. If the two teams were to have met in a playoff involving more than the two teams, it would have been much more acceptable.

Why? Over the course of 3 months and 13/14 games, didn't they prove that they were the two best teams in the country?

Even so, most playoffs don't always include the BEST teams, just the teams that win divisions/conferences. That really doesn't prove superiority.

[RedPhoenix]

THill nails it in this thread!

[Red Reign]

Exactly....

I think they would. It's not the result from last night, it was the process that created the matchup. If the two teams were to have met in a playoff involving more than the two teams, it would have been much more acceptable.

[Red Reign]

No he doesn't and we all know you, he, Sonuva and Pops are BCS guys....your better than that RP.....

THill nails it in this thread!

[Pops]

I think they would. It's not the result from last night, it was the process that created the matchup. If the two teams were to have met in a playoff involving more than the two teams, it would have been much more acceptable.

yes because there is hardly ever a rematch with a playoff format

[Red Reign]

You of all people supporting this system is beyond me my good friend....

yes because there is hardly ever a rematch with a playoff format

[bentNblue]

I've been slugging my way through several of these treads now and personally I'm torn (fence sitting maybe a better term) between the bowl system with BCS and a playoff system.

However, the one thing I don't see in any of the discussion is the underdog winning the whole enchilada when they obviously were not the "best team" in the nation. For example, the Green Bay Packers were one or two plays away from being eliminated from the playoffs last year but managed to pull out the game. Once in the playoffs they made it to and won the Superbowl. To say that they "earned" it is an understatement. To say they were the "Best" NFL team at the end of the Superbowl is probably an accurate statement. To say they were the Best NFL team going into the playoffs...many would refute.

Some of the best teams get "taken out" during a playoff format. I'm okay with that. On the other hand the BCS format appears to me to try and reward the best two teams (40 days ago at the end of regular season) an opportunity to be crowned MNC. Thanks for listening

[Pops]

Problem is you don't know that Thill....its pure speculation on your part....unless its played on the field we will never know....and thats why more and more and more folks refuse to watch the BCS....

So yeah who ever got through the playoffs it would have been more legitimate...and folks are voting by not watching the BCS and that in the end will change the system....$$$ are the bottom line...

like a 8 and 8 denver team? yes they are the best for sure in the NFL and the again hosted a 12 and 4 team.