Reply With Quote
Yeah...Boise St. did play with a huge chip on their shoulder. Boise St. vs. Oklahoma.....the best football game I've ever seen. NFL or College....
Dat Hook and Ladder and Statue of Liberty...
No one should be surprised that they found a way to leave TCU and Baylor out though. I remember it was worse that one year they left Boise State and TCU out of the big bowl games. lol Established programs don't want anything to do with up-and-coming programs that are hungry and will play with a huge chip on their shoulder, tbh.
Yeah...Boise St. did play with a huge chip on their shoulder. Boise St. vs. Oklahoma.....the best football game I've ever seen. NFL or College....
Dat Hook and Ladder and Statue of Liberty...
I did want 8 at first now after some thought.....
If we took the 5 conference champs, the next three more than likely would be those who lost those conference le games. The three who lost by the least more or less. That's weak.
How do you keep the SEC loser out?
Gotta stick with 4.
It should be 6.
Top 2 get first round Byes
3/6 and 4/5
1 vs lowest advancing
2 vs highest avancing
Creates drama for limited amount of at-large, and reduces field for better quality teams/games.
Oregon a 9 point dog at a nuetral site????????
oregon
florida state
alabama
tcu
the 4 team system is wack. i hope they change it to 6-8 teams
Trying to inspire betting. It'll even out, maybe swing for Oregon in a week or two.
The teams that just miss out are always going to complain no matter if it's a 4, 6 or 8 team playoff imo. I don't have a problem with the number, my issue is the try hard committee. Put in a system that isn't re ed enough to drop a team three spots when they win by 50 tbh.
There should definitely be a formula to at least give transparancy and a starting point. This way if the committee overrules the formula based on eye test they have been exposed as frontrunners, brandists, and have explaining to do against quantified facts.
The idea Ohio State is in because it won 10 games with a sub-50 SOS is ridiculous. If you're perfect, that's one thing, but they lost to a shifty ACC team.
TCU should be in for losing to a good opponent away from home by three points. The NCAA simply does not penalize enough for losing to ty teams.
Amen.
------
The BCS was fine. This is just to sell ducats & souvenirs.
Here's an idea: ins ute a system of computer rankings similar to what Ohio does in high-school football. You get 1st-level computer points for games you win and 2nd-level points for games won by the teams you beat. It's a system that rewards strength-of-schedule while taking "good" or "bad" losses entirely out of the equation, as well as the pollsters.
The current system is fine. No matter what "system" is in place....the first 2 teams left out will still and complain.
....look at the March Madness brackets. The 69th and 70th teams cry that they should've got in....
The problem with expanding to 8 teams is asking the team's fans to travel 3 times in the postseason to see their team play. That's both expensive and time consuming. If it's expanded to 8, then 1st round games might have to follow a homefield advantage format.
If the system involves a committee without somewhat equal representation from the big conferences, I would say that is not fine.
Which conference(s) were not equally represented?
Big 12 only had Oliver Luck from WVU on the committee.
not equally represented
:
IMO, they should just completely redo the conferences into 4 main conferences, North, South, East, and West. Divide them up into two divisions each (North and South conferences would have East and West divisions, East and West conferences would have North and South divisions).
Create some stipulations to allow the total number to be cut from 128 teams to 80 teams, get rid of a bunch of those bummy teams that never win crap, bring no value, and have no business being in D-1. Get rid of rankings as well.
This way you can have 10 teams in each division, allowing for 9 games for each team to play everyone in their division, as well as 2 OOC games. You can still have some sort of bowl game setup for the sake of having some extra games to make money, but then have a playoff setting, in which division winners play a game for the conference, then by record, rate the conference winners 1-4, and have a 3 game playoff between them for the NC.
If it comes down to committee votes, why would you not have equal reps? Big10 had Alvarez and Osbourne, of course they voted for OSU over TCU/Baylor.
The SEC only had one representative..
The ACC only had one representative...
Do you not agree that the lack of a conference championship (and therefore naming co-champions) was the Big 12's ultimate downfall like the playoff committee stated?
I was not aware of that, why did the Big 10 get to have two?
I agree it is an issue, but it also sidetracks discussion of issues of problems with the system as currently set up. Baylor could also have not played Incarnate Word, etc. TCU or Baylor could also have just as easily been passed up by OSU even if they played a championship game and the score was close and OSU beat Wisconsin by 50. It's also pretty clear this probably wouldn't have happened to UT or OU, and that is not "fair" either.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
