Playoff

[Scarlet]

Your saying that the result of two teams playing each other has "little to nothing" to do with proving who is better simply leaves me, and probably anyone else who played the game, speechless. Wow. Just wow.

On a given day, maybe so. Over the course of a season not so much. You get it. You're just protecting your view.

[Cardinal]

Tell me again, what is this playoff about?

Please tell us how far behind you are in your understanding, so we'll know where to start the remediation.

[Cardinal]

Never underestimate the depths of $EC corruption and the pull of money on a decision maker. Hopefully, the committee will be full of upstanding human beings but I'm betting on the $EC at least trying to chum the party with sympathizers.

And who has been successful in doing that with the NCAA's basketball tournament committee?

[IndyHusker15]

Your saying that the result of two teams playing each other has "little to nothing" to do with proving who is better simply leaves me, and probably anyone else who played the game, speechless. Wow. Just wow.

So when App St beat Michigan 5 years ago, THEY were the better team? Wow. Just wow.

[Scarlet]

So when App St beat Michigan 5 years ago, THEY were the better team? Wow. Just wow.

Or Kansas over Oklahama in 1975? UTEP over BYU in 1985? Stanford over USC in 2007? To name a few....

[Scarlet]

And who has been successful in doing that with the NCAA's basketball tournament committee?

With 68 teams getting in who's going to risk it for #69? With four teams and the one on the outside is Alabama, the dynamic changes.

[cm husker]

Your saying that the result of two teams playing each other has "little to nothing" to do with proving who is better simply leaves me, and probably anyone else who played the game, speechless. Wow. Just wow.

You understand the idea of an upset, right? Would you say a team that upset another during march madness is the better team or just that they performed better that day?

If, as any logical person would agree, it is the latter, then how important is it to create a system that facilitate upsets?

As to the reasoning behind the playoff push, other than money grabbing, what is the motivation? Start wherever you want.

[cm husker]

And who has been successful in doing that with the NCAA's basketball tournament committee?

You bring up a good point. The basketball committee is under constant fire, and it's part of the reason they extended to 68.

[Cardinal]

On a given day, maybe so. Over the course of a season not so much. You get it. You're just protecting your view.

Is a Nebraska team that went 12-1 but beat everybody in conference by 4 TDs more deserving of a shot at the national championship than is a 13-0 Ohio State team that beat NU in the CCG but squeaked by in many of its conference games? Remember, the standard being promoted by some on here is that game results don't matter; it is all about perceived strength over the entire season.

[cm husker]

Is the B12 going back to a conf champ game? Without one, their chances of a multiple team BCS goes up even more.

Maybe we will have an oh so exciting B12 #1 and #2 against sec #1 and #2 matchup. That will be great.


Anyone who doesn't realize this is a b12/sec grab, needs to remove the blinders.

[Cardinal]

So when App St beat Michigan 5 years ago, THEY were the better team? Wow. Just wow.

The problem with your comparing that game to a playoff game is that in a playoff game, both teams have already excelled all season long to get into the playoffs. It is two very successful teams battling it out. The difference between the two teams' season results and overall abilities are small and certainly very subjective. A major upset of a heavily favored, successful team by a prohibitive underdog during the regular season is a completely different situation in comparing two teams.

[The Big Red Lebowski]

I'll speak for myself, but I have never argued that a 4-team playoff was more "fair" or crowned a more worthy champion. I'm in favor or the 4-teamer because the result will be 3 great post-season college games. Last year, we likely would have had:

LSU vs. Stanford or Oregon
'Bama vs. Okie State

Are there really folks out there who prefer what actually happened - a regional rematch and Stanford playing Okie St. in an exhibition game? I'm sure it's a money grab/power play for the conferences, but as a fan just give me some compelling post season match-ups with more on the line than a golden bowl of corn chips.

[The Impaler]

Guys just saying...... there will be a south to southeastern bias in the playoff. Look at where the bowl games are played.

You can bet every year the Sugar gets a game, the SEC team will be there with essentially a home field advantage. USC will be playing in the Rose......... miami, FSU, UF in the Orange......... Why can't the games be played in Memorial or the Big House or Kinnick or the HorseShoe?????

While I agree that seeds 1 & 2 should have a home game, I have to ask, what is different about what you state and the way it is now? Oh, and the title game is not part of the bowls, so that could end up in New York or Detroit or well, you get the picture.

[The Impaler]

I'll speak for myself, but I have never argued that a 4-team playoff was more "fair" or crowned a more worthy champion. I'm in favor or the 4-teamer because the result will be 3 great post-season college games. Last year, we likely would have had:

LSU vs. Stanford or Oregon
'Bama vs. Okie State

Are there really folks out there who prefer what actually happened - a regional rematch and Stanford playing Okie St. in an exhibition game? I'm sure it's a money grab/power play for the conferences, but as a fan just give me some compelling post season match-ups with more on the line than a golden bowl of corn chips.

Apparently there are a whole bunch.

[HuskerGene]

Is a Nebraska team that went 12-1 but beat everybody in conference by 4 TDs more deserving of a shot at the national championship than is a 13-0 Ohio State team that beat NU in the CCG but squeaked by in many of its conference games? Remember, the standard being promoted by some on here is that game results don't matter; it is all about perceived strength over the entire season.

Isn't 'perceived strength' the same as a poll?

And why does 'deciding it on the field' only apply to a playoff game? LSU's entire season was great, including their win over Bama. But Bama's perceived strength allowed them to try again. The regular season game proved nothing, playoff or not. What have we gained? Someone mentioned earlier that we will never see Boise, TCU, Utah etc. in the title game. Absolute truth!

[Cardinal]

Isn't 'perceived strength' the same as a poll?

And why does 'deciding it on the field' only apply to a playoff game? LSU's entire season was great, including their win over Bama. But Bama's perceived strength allowed them to try again. The regular season game proved nothing, playoff or not. What have we gained? Someone mentioned earlier that we will never see Boise, TCU, Utah etc. in the title game. Absolute truth!

What have we gained? Here is what I posted above in this thread in answer to the question of what would we have gained last year if there had been a four team playoff including Okie State and some fourth team:

"One reason it would have been fairer/better: Big 12 and SEC were the two highest rated conferences, by far. Okie State won one of those two conferences. Its only loss was in-conference, on the road, against a bowl team, in OT, on/after a tragic day for the athletics department. Okie State may have been better than either of LSU or Bama. We'll never know.

That is the very definition of a mythical championship won by Bama. 2011 was a perfect example of why championships need to be decided by the players, on the field." (instead of by third parties who have to guess who would have won, had intersectional teams played each other)

(HG, you even replied to that earlier post of mine, but I am happy to repeat it here for you ... this one time )

[HuskerGene]

I'm really not arguing your point or anyone else's, and I remember your post. My view is that the BCS was a dog-&-pony show & the new playoff will be more of the same. The little guys will never get in. Like I stated, 'perceived strength' will always keep the big guys in (bama) & the little guys out (boise.) If the regular season is supposed to matter then only conference champions should be allowed, period. This is where we have not gained a thing.

[cm husker]

How many times since the BCS's inception has anyone besides the most deserving team won the national championship?

I'm fairly certain that this year's Alabama situation was one of the first, unless you include the Boise St situations, but I don't because they don't play a tough enough schedule to warrant serious national championship consideration unless everyone else eliminates themselves.

[huskrthill]

Please tell us how far behind you are in your understanding, so we'll know where to start the remediation.

Try actually reading and comprehending a post instead of instantly resorting to snarky condescension. Trust me, it will help you make friends. Unless, of course, you're either incapable of comprehending a simple question and instead are just interested in being a troll...

I'll try again - hopefully you'll understand this time. If it's not about matching up the best teams to determine a champion on the field, and it's not about eliminating controversy found in the BCS system, then what is the purpose of the new playoff?

[bilsker]

You bring up a good point. The basketball committee is under constant fire, and it's part of the reason they extended to 68.

Actually I believe the main reason it was expanded was that there were more and more teams moving to D1 (i.e. UNO) and IIRC more conferences reaching "AQ" status.