Locked due to no posts in 60 days. Report 1st post if need unlocked Playoff proponents - another meaningful regular season game

[Porkchopexpress]

so rematches make sense now

You're right, there's a lot of circular logic when it comes to this debate. However, I'm much more comfortable with a rematch in a playoff system, rather than the one we have now. When you've got 8 teams vying for a championship, there's likely to be a rematch along the way somewhere.

 

[HuskerJAG]

Alabama lost to a 6-7 team?

No, Alabama had their SHOT against the number one team. They lost.

The pairing of the top two teams, using the BCS, has a lot of assumptions and biases. Because teams play 2/3rds of their games against conference foes, and only a handful of nonconference games are against upper-tier opponents (not a handful for each team, a handful of all nonconference games played by all teams), there are numerous assumptions and biases regarding who the better teams are. Most people assume the SEC is, by far, the best conference. It may be true, but how do we know that the SEC is the best conference THIS year? The Big XII looks like it was pretty darn good this year, but assumptions and biases put two SEC teams in the national championship game. I agree that OSU blew it by losing to Iowa State, but is that definitive proof that OSU is worse than Alabama? Actually, I think OSU matches up pretty favorably against LSU and Alabama, and I think it would have been an exciting game. My contention is that Alabama lost to LSU, at home, with no questionable calls, late in the season. They had their shot. We don't know who the next best team is, but it should have been someone other than Alabama in the NC game. This BS, oops, I mean BCS, pairing of two SEC teams just perpetuates the assumptions and biases regarding the SEC, and guarantees another SEC champion.

 

[HuskerJAG]

& significantly diminish the importance of the regular season.

much of the discussion centers around who's the #2 seed ---- over reaction ----> so take 8 or 12? :confused: more = better?

why not 4? (middle ground to balance season importance with selection process concerns)

I agree with you that any discussion of a playoff cannot include a lot of teams. To keep college football special, the regular season needs to be important. If a playoff were limited to 4, or 8, teams, the regular season would be meaningful. I wouldn't want to see it get too big, but every year it seems we have at least four or five teams that have a legitimate argument regarding their "place" in the national championship picture.

When teams only have three or four nonconference games, and most of those are against pansies or mid-level BCS competition, with only an occassional marquee matchup, it's very difficult to determine which teams are the best. Instead, the BCS just uses history, assumptions, and biases to pick the two "best" teams for the championship game.

 

[coherbie]

No, Alabama had their SHOT against the number one team. They lost.

The pairing of the top two teams, using the BCS, has a lot of assumptions and biases. Because teams play 2/3rds of their games against conference foes, and only a handful of nonconference games are against upper-tier opponents (not a handful for each team, a handful of all nonconference games played by all teams), there are numerous assumptions and biases regarding who the better teams are. Most people assume the SEC is, by far, the best conference. It may be true, but how do we know that the SEC is the best conference THIS year? The Big XII looks like it was pretty darn good this year, but assumptions and biases put two SEC teams in the national championship game. I agree that OSU blew it by losing to Iowa State, but is that definitive proof that OSU is worse than Alabama? Actually, I think OSU matches up pretty favorably against LSU and Alabama, and I think it would have been an exciting game. My contention is that Alabama lost to LSU, at home, with no questionable calls, late in the season. They had their shot. We don't know who the next best team is, but it should have been someone other than Alabama in the NC game. This BS, oops, I mean BCS, pairing of two SEC teams just perpetuates the assumptions and biases regarding the SEC, and guarantees another SEC champion.

so if Okie State had been deemed #2 (& been in the MNCG) do you still have an issue?

---
If so, is your problem with #1 vs. #2 or with how the teams are seeded?

 

[mjw11]

man its too bad the nfl doesnt have bowl games .......these playoffs are going to suck

 

[nems]

man its too bad the nfl doesnt have bowl games .......these playoffs are going to suck

:rolfl:

 

[huskrthill]

man its too bad the nfl doesnt have bowl games .......these playoffs are going to suck

I just wish they had more 8-8 and 9-7 teams in the playoffs. Going about .500 on the season definitely makes you deserving of a chance at a championship.

 

[mjw11]

and those teams will not be part of the super bowl...this is what makes the eventual D-1 playoff great...there wont be any 6-6 schools it will be the best of the best getting to prove their bestest (i know) on the field

 

[huskrthill]

and those teams will not be part of the super bowl...this is what makes the eventual D-1 playoff great...there wont be any 6-6 schools it will be the best of the best getting to prove their bestest (i know) on the field

How can you say that? An 8-8 or 9-7 team very well might make the Super Bowl.

 

[mjw11]

How can you say that? An 8-8 or 9-7 team very well might make the Super Bowl.

you are right, i think arizona did a few years ago, but the giants and broncos are not making the super bowl

 

[HuskerJAG]

so if Okie State had been deemed #2 (& been in the MNCG) do you still have an issue?

---
If so, is your problem with #1 vs. #2 or with how the teams are seeded?

My issue would be less, but would still be there to some degree because of Stanford and, to a certain extent, Boise State. Your second question is more spot on. Because of the limited number of nonconference games pitting quality opponents, it is very difficult to "seed" or rank teams, particularly when you are trying to determine the top two of about 120 teams. Therefore, expanding to a four, or eight, team playoff, you eliminate much of the guesswork regarding the top teams. Add to that the excitement of pitting top-notch teams against each other in a playoff format, and I'm on board.