Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 28
  1. #11
    Rebar71
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by No One View Post
    That may have been the worst bunch of BCS games ever.

    Only one was even competitive, and that was Kansas vs. Va. Tech.
    You obviously didn't see the Michigan/Florida game...

  2. #12
    Hoya
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rebar71 View Post
    You obviously didn't see the Michigan/Florida game...
    That wasn't a BCS game.

  3. #13
    2nd Scoring Line GALLY's Avatar




    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    693
    Liked
    12 times
    Karma
    1010000
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    19 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hipcheck View Post
    What they need to do is take the Top 4 teams and have them play each other....

    The #1 Seed plays the 4th Seed and 2 & 3s play each other.

    The Winners play each other the Week before the Super Bowl. A true national champ is crowned and youve got a mega ratings winner as there is nothing on the week before the Bowl. Win Win.
    I think 16 teams and incorporate all the bowl games. Instead of the Poulan Weed Eater Bowl between SW State and Northeastern Podunk University playing for nothing we could have had #1 vs #16 with the loser going home.

    Rotate the actual final game between the current BCS bowl games and do the playoffs over the holiday break. It would only take 4 weeks and you keep the bowls.....

  4. #14
    Hit it like a baby seal SmytheKing's Avatar




    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    10,015
    Liked
    1091 times
    Karma
    1080000
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    185 Post(s)

    Default

    There was an article on Yahoo a while back dealing with a playoff system. I liked it. Each conf champion gets a ticket to the playoff. No debate. You win your conf, you get in. Then a committee picks the 5 remaining spots from teams that didn't get in to determine a field of 16. Seeding is done and away you go. You want in for sure? Win your conference.

  5. #15
    Hoya
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SmytheKing View Post
    There was an article on Yahoo a while back dealing with a playoff system. I liked it. Each conf champion gets a ticket to the playoff. No debate. You win your conf, you get in. Then a committee picks the 5 remaining spots from teams that didn't get in to determine a field of 16. Seeding is done and away you go. You want in for sure? Win your conference.
    This would be a lot easier to say if all conferences had a full round-robin schedule like the Pac-10. For example, LSU and Georgia never played each other this season.

    I have hard time saying the MAC champion should go over an at-large team. It's a lot easier in basketball when there are 65 teams involved.

  6. #16
    Hit it like a baby seal SmytheKing's Avatar




    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    10,015
    Liked
    1091 times
    Karma
    1080000
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    185 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jbruin152 View Post
    This would be a lot easier to say if all conferences had a full round-robin schedule like the Pac-10. For example, LSU and Georgia never played each other this season.
    I totally understand that, but think about it this way. . .if a team loses out because they didn't play enough conf games, wouldn't they schedule that for next year? Or better yet, in addition to that scheme, make it a mandatory 7 conf games or something. Large conferences won't play each other every year, but so be it. Those things happen. Just because LSU and Georgia didn't play, they still got a conf champ out of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by jbruin152
    I have hard time saying the MAC champion should go over an at-large team. It's a lot easier in basketball when there are 65 teams involved.
    I agree here too. But the article was talking about the idea that what is exciting to everyone in March Madness isn't the Final game so much as it's the 12 beating the 5. Upsets are what makes it special. Would App State beat LSU this year? Not likely. . .but we didn't think they'd beat Michigan at home either. Point is, if you win your conf, you're in. If you don't, but you had a great year, you could still get in. Georgia would have been in the tourney this year. So would have UWV. It made the most sense to me out of any other idea. There's a reward for winning your conference. Gives the smaller schools a chance. . .however small it is.

  7. #17
    Hit it like a baby seal SmytheKing's Avatar




    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    10,015
    Liked
    1091 times
    Karma
    1080000
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    185 Post(s)

  8. #18
    Hoya
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SmytheKing
    I totally understand that, but think about it this way. . .if a team loses out because they didn't play enough conf games, wouldn't they schedule that for next year? Or better yet, in addition to that scheme, make it a mandatory 7 conf games or something. Large conferences won't play each other every year, but so be it. Those things happen. Just because LSU and Georgia didn't play, they still got a conf champ out of it.
    It has nothing to do with making some choice to schedule some more conference games. Any conference bigger than 10 teams will have this issue. The Pac-10 is the only one of the BCS conferences with a full round-robin, and that didn't even exist until the schedule bumped up from 11 to 12 games. In a playoff system, they'd almost undoubtedly dump the Pac-10 back to eight conference games, so that would be zero. You have to account for that.

    Non-BCS conference teams can still get into the playoff anyway if they run the table. Are you honestly telling me it makes sense to you to add an 8-5 MAC champ Bowling Green team over a far more qualified at-large from a bigger conference?

    And on a tangent, I don't buy the "The regular season is sacred" argument either. Injuries can cost you a game and for that an entire season is lost (see USC vs. Oregon, West Virginia vs. Pitt, etc.), whereas in a playoff this is irrelevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by SmytheKing
    I agree here too. But the article was talking about the idea that what is exciting to everyone in March Madness isn't the Final game so much as it's the 12 beating the 5. Upsets are what makes it special. Would App State beat LSU this year? Not likely. . .but we didn't think they'd beat Michigan at home either. Point is, if you win your conf, you're in. If you don't, but you had a great year, you could still get in. Georgia would have been in the tourney this year. So would have WVU. It made the most sense to me out of any other idea. There's a reward for winning your conference. Gives the smaller schools a chance. . .however small it is.
    Basketball is also a much different animal. Much shorter game for the viewer's attention span, the three-point equalizer for less athletically-gifted teams, a lot more games that come down to the final minute of play, and most notably it's much less physically demanding. Adding an extra round to incorporate a bunch of garbage teams seems extraordinarily fruitless.

  9. #19
    Hit it like a baby seal SmytheKing's Avatar




    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    10,015
    Liked
    1091 times
    Karma
    1080000
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    185 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jbruin152 View Post
    It has nothing to do with making some choice to schedule some more conference games. Any conference bigger than 10 teams will have this issue. The Pac-10 is the only one of the BCS conferences with a full round-robin, and that didn't even exist until the schedule bumped up from 11 to 12 games. In a playoff system, they'd almost undoubtedly dump the Pac-10 back to eight conference games, so that would be zero. You have to account for that.
    Like I said, if every conference team doesn't play each other every year, so be it. Make a rule saying each team plays 8 conf games and 3 out of conf games. I'd be fine with that. I don't know what the issue would be at that point.

    Quote Originally Posted by jbruin152
    Non-BCS conference teams can still get into the playoff anyway if they run the table. Are you honestly telling me it makes sense to you to add an 8-5 MAC champ Bowling Green team over a far more qualified at-large from a bigger conference?
    I'll be honest, yes. I feel that there has to be some importance to the regular season for the smaller conferences. Why does a MAC team have to run the table to even be in consideration for a national title, but a "power conference" can lose once or twice and still be in the running? You can tell me that it's because they play harder teams, but I'd say that Bowling Green is as tough an opponent for SDSU as USC would be for Oregon. As I said previously too, I'm sure SMU probably wouldn't beat LSU or USC in an opening round, but what if they did? What if they pulled a Boise State? How freaking exciting was that game? Sorry, but if we had this system in place this year, ASU wouldn't have gotten screwed. West Virginia and Mizzou could have had a shot at redeming themselves after one bad game. I don't mind that BYU or some other smaller school gets in. Creates a reward for the small schools AND the big schools.

    Quote Originally Posted by jbruin152
    And on a tangent, I don't buy the "The regular season is sacred" argument either. Injuries can cost you a game and for that an entire season is lost (see USC vs. Oregon, West Virginia vs. Pitt, etc.), whereas in a playoff this is irrelevant.
    Agree. But at what point does that matter? One game? Two? Three? If a team is running the table and loses three games at the end of the year, their chance of being in the playoffs is pretty slim. If you have a group of people making some choices, they might put that team in even though they're out of the Top 16 or 8 or whatever.

  10. #20
    Hoya
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SmytheKing
    Like I said, if every conference team doesn't play each other every year, so be it. Make a rule saying each team plays 8 conf games and 3 out of conf games. I'd be fine with that. I don't know what the issue would be at that point.
    Um, this already happens. As far as I know, each team (minus the independents of course) plays a set slate of 9 conf. and 3 nonconf. games. My point has nothing to do with the number distribution, but that you can't go talking about the conference championship as if it's the defining factor when teams like LSU and Georgia don't even play each other within their conference.

    Quote Originally Posted by SmytheKing
    Why does a MAC team have to run the table to even be in consideration for a national title, but a "power conference" can lose once or twice and still be in the running? You can tell me that it's because they play harder teams
    You answered your own question.

    Quote Originally Posted by SmytheKing
    but I'd say that Bowling Green is as tough an opponent for SDSU as USC would be for Oregon.
    So what? A little league team would be as tough an opponent for another little league team too. Completely irrelevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by SmytheKing
    I'm sure SMU probably wouldn't beat LSU or USC in an opening round, but what if they did? What if they pulled a Boise State? How freaking exciting was that game?
    Boise State ran the table and deserved to be there.

    As previously noted, the logistics in college football vs. college basketball are much, much different and you have to account for that.

    Quote Originally Posted by SmytheKing
    Sorry, but if we had this system in place this year, ASU wouldn't have gotten screwed.
    ASU didn't get screwed. They didn't belong anywhere near a BCS game. They got beat double-digits by the two good teams they played all year.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66