KontradictioN

I didn't mind the bowl system either. I just would have liked to see a playoff system in which (and this had been mentioned) we get to see if a team like Boise State really does have what it takes to go all the way against the SEC and the ACC. In essence, I wanted a playoff, but more of an NFL style playoff with 12-16 of the top teams based on national rank in it. This crap idea that they came out with instead should go directly into the toilet.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


CREDIT - Sicilian

Deus Irae

Hey, Kontra, my bad. I should have made it clear that I was laughing at the many people who'll be saying what you're saying, and doing it because this is "better" since they want just one clear #1 (as if the 2007 Giants are clearly the best team from that season, or something), and not specifically at you. The original system was excellent. They follow up, with the delayed bowls, kind of sucked, but the idea was at least sound. The BCS was another step down, and now they've dug beneath the basement for this latest incarnation.

I now await the expansion to 8 teams, so that all 5-10 teams that can realistically claim a shot every year will be able to bring in even more of the higher level talent and completely screw over the lesser schools in a way we haven't seen in decades.

__________________
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
- Marcus Aurelius

KontradictioN

You can have a 16 team race just as easily as you have a 12 team race if you space it out correctly. Though, a 12 team race is ideal...

Teams 1-4 get Byes with 1 and 2 having HFA throughout. The other 8 teams play during a wild card weekend of Friday night and Saturday. The remaining four teams play teams 1-4 Friday night and Saturday of next weekend. The winners of those games move on to a Semi-Final round to be played the following Saturday. And the two teams left standing play for the National Championship two Saturdays later.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


CREDIT - Sicilian

stinebot

Alabama should not have played in the national championship last year. What's the point of having a regular season and a conference playoff if the results of that will be disregarded? Alabama did not even win the SEC West, let alone the SEC. So how did they deserve a shot at the national championship? They were not even the best team in the SEC West. Games count. Yeah, a team may have highly skilled players, but if they cannot put that skill to use when it matters they should not get rewarded with a trip to the title game anyway. Just imagine the outcry from everyone but some Pats fans (and rightly so) if the Broncos had beat the Pats in the playoffs, but then later sportswriters decide that the Pats are the best team in the AFC anyway and award them a trip to the Superbowl. To get to the title game you need to win your way in. Not lose and back in because sportswriters vote you in to make their own preseason predictions look good.

WhiZa

You have to start somewhere. Even the NFL started out back in 1933 with a single championship game and worked it's way up to a 4 team playoff for Superbowl I in 1967. It will take time, but we will have a larger playoff bracket in our lifetime.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
- 4 years =
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Triumph

LSU and Bama should have played a 3rd game to decide who was best since both lost to each other.

Deus Irae

Because you want the best teams fighting for the title. Isn't that what this is supposed to be about? After all, the NFL has wild cards, so teams that don't even win their division make the playoffs. See, this is another reason why the playoff sucks. All that's happened is the "But, what about me?" has been kicked further down the ladder, and people are now coming up with excuses to eliminate teams that are supposedly the exact sort of reason for the playoff in the first place.



BTW, Felger and Mazz are both on board with the new system, so I'm more sure than ever that it's a bad idea.

__________________
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
- Marcus Aurelius

stinebot

Except LSU beat Alabama in the regular season just like they beat everyone else they played. Alabama only got a second chance because they got put into a championship game they didn't earn their way into.

I'd be fine with Alabama winning the national championship if they had earned it. If there was a playoff and they won out fine. But they ended up as 3rd place in the SEC so I don't see any logical way to catapult them in front of Oklahoma State, Stanford, Oregon, etc to a shot at the title regardless of what sportswriters and other coaches think. If a real playoff is implemented then whoever wins wins. But picking 4 teams, either you just do 1-4 and 2-3 matchups to determine who plays for the title and disregard conference championships totally (as in not even play the games) or you take the 4 conference champs with best records and forget the rankings. You can't have it both ways.

mgteich

Many posters want to change the rules for determining the National Championship after the fact. All teams played according to the rules.

We now will have new rules.

I would prefer 3 weeks and 8 teams, but 4 teams is a first step. a 2-game playoff for an 11-12 game season seems appropriate.


BTW, we do not "lose" bowl games. 2 of the bowl games will have the 4 teams competing for the championship, and there will a championship as there was last year.

stinebot

Speaking solely for myself, it's not an after the fact thing. I thought it should have been LSU-Oklahoma State even before the participants were announced. If two teams are as closely ranked as Bama and OK St were, rather than going to a hundredth or thousandth of a decimal place to determine it should be logical to select the conference champ over a team that didn't eve make their conference championship.

But yes, a playoff is certainly better than no playoff. I just wonder what happens in a year or three when 3 SEC teams make the playoffs and an undefeated team from another conference does not, just because people back in August decided "Well, we decided the ACC just isn't very strong this year, so no matter how the season plays out no ACC team is making the 4 team playoff." It's a bit easier to excuse when it's only 2 teams, but with 4 it'll be a big controversy all over again. The only way to dispel that is to go to something like a 10 or 12 team playoff. Yeah, half the season will be playoffs but the NCAA has far more football teams than the NFL does so to have a valid championship you need to give teams a chance to prove they belong.

A few years back when Boise State was going undefeated and never getting a shot at the title it was because "They haven't played anyone". Then they beat Virginia Tech. They beat Oregon. They beat Oklahoma in a bowl game. They beat Ga Tech. But most SEC or Big 12 teams wouldn't schedule them because if they lost it would validate Boise State's place in the polls instead of safely being able to ignore an undefeated top 10 team.