• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

2013 Preseason and regular polls

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
BUCKYLE said:
Who cares? There's a playoff. Go undefeated in the regular season beating the toughest schedule in CFB history, lose to a two loss team you already beat in the playoffs.
Click to expand...

Instead of going undefeated against the toughest schedule in CFB history and lose to a 3 loss team because that 2 loss team wasn't invited in favor of a shittier conference champion?

In 2011 you would have had to go down to #7 Boise State or #10 Fucking Bucky to get a 4th Champion.
 
Upvote 0
Mariotwins said:
Instead of going undefeated against the toughest schedule in CFB history and lose to a 3 loss team because that 2 loss team wasn't invited in favor of a [Mark May]tier conference champion?

In 2011 you would have had to go down to #7 Boise State or #10 Fucking Bucky to get a 4th Champion.
Click to expand...
Yeah I don't care. A conference champ is a champ. I'd much rather a #10 major conference champ win the NC than the second place SEC team.
 
Upvote 0
Maybe a 3 loss team doesn't deserve to be in the playoff, but a 2 loss team could earn a spot if they're a conference champ and played a difficult schedule. If Texas and Oklahoma were at their typical strengths, and Texas dropped a close one to Oklahoma and a strong OOC team and still was the best team from the Big12, I'd be okay with them going to the playoff in front of say...a 1 loss non-AQ team.
 
Upvote 0
Mariotwins said:
I disagree that's like saying the 2 strongest and or most deserving teams can't be in the same division or conference
Click to expand...

I'm not saying 'most deserving'. I don't buy into the 'most deserving' bullshit that ESPN puts out there. It's not about 'most deserving'. They claim it is about finding who is 'the best'. You have Group A, B, C and D all play against each other all season long. Each finds out who is the best in their conference. Each puts fourth their best to duke it out. Why do people argue with this? It's like I'm being punished for thinking of this in an unbiased, logical way.

As an example, if you have Georgia with 1 loss doesn't win the SEC and LSU does. We assume that Georgia is #2 in the country.
LSU, Stanford, Ohio State and Oklahoma all go to the tourney to duke it out because they won their conference. THIS IN NO WAY MEANS THAT OKLAHOMA IS BETTER THAN GEORGIA. Georgia may still be the second best team in the country. But you can't leave out Oklahoma because 'Georgia deserves it more.' What if the Big 12 is better than everyone expects and they (as a conference) go blow out the bowl season. If Georgia wants in the playoff, then WIN YOUR CONFERENCE. What if Oklahoma beats Ohio State close, LSU beats Stanford close, and then Oklahoma goes in as a huge underdog and crushes LSU.... have we seen that before? The top 4 SEC teams might deserve it more than all of the other conference champions, so should they all play in the playoff? Yes, that is extreme, but it's really the same thing. You could argue that 2-3 years ago the 4 best teams in the SEC were better than everyone else, and did deserve it more.

So the question is: Are you trying to find the best team, in the most logical way, or are you trying to reward those that deserve it? This isn't elementary school t-ball where everyone who tries hard gets a trophy. Take care of your business. The problem is we don't really know how strong every conference is until the bowl season. So why make assumptions based upon their rankings when you can avoid the controversy and do it in a clear logical way? Maybe next year Georgia will try harder and win their conference, take care of business.
 
Upvote 0
TampaBuckeyes said:
I'm not saying 'most deserving'. I don't buy into the 'most deserving' bull[Mark May] that ESPN puts out there. It's not about 'most deserving'. They claim it is about finding who is 'the best'. You have Group A, B, C and D all play against each other all season long. Each finds out who is the best in their conference. Each puts fourth their best to duke it out. Why do people argue with this? It's like I'm being punished for thinking of this in an unbiased, logical way.

As an example, if you have Georgia with 1 loss doesn't win the SEC and LSU does. We assume that Georgia is #2 in the country.
LSU, Stanford, Ohio State and Oklahoma all go to the tourney to duke it out because they won their conference. THIS IN NO WAY MEANS THAT OKLAHOMA IS BETTER THAN GEORGIA. Georgia may still be the second best team in the country. But you can't leave out Oklahoma because 'Georgia deserves it more.' What if the Big 12 is better than everyone expects and they (as a conference) go blow out the bowl season. If Georgia wants in the playoff, then WIN YOUR CONFERENCE. What if Oklahoma beats Ohio State close, LSU beats Stanford close, and then Oklahoma goes in as a huge underdog and crushes LSU.... have we seen that before? The top 4 SEC teams might deserve it more than all of the other conference champions, so should they all play in the playoff? Yes, that is extreme, but it's really the same thing. You could argue that 2-3 years ago the 4 best teams in the SEC were better than everyone else, and did deserve it more.

So the question is: Are you trying to find the best team, in the most logical way, or are you trying to reward those that deserve it? This isn't elementary school t-ball where everyone who tries hard gets a trophy. Take care of your business. The problem is we don't really know how strong every conference is until the bowl season. So why make assumptions based upon their rankings when you can avoid the controversy and do it in a clear logical way? Maybe next year Georgia will try harder and win their conference, take care of business.
Click to expand...

The whole ranking/title discussion is at least part who is the best and part who deserves it. Otherwise you would also be trying to convince me they need to play a best of 3/5/7/whatever that alternates home games and away games or truely neutral sites because slip ups happen and everyone knows it. Just because they catch a team on a bad night doesn't mean they are the best in CFB
 
Upvote 0
Bill Lucas said:
Makes no sense. The ranking of their defense has nothing to do with their inept offense that only scored 14 points in the game. Their defense held Purdue to ZERO points which is what a top ranked defense should do against a team like Purdue.
Click to expand...
Lucas: I went in my posts and re-read it. Your right It did not make any sense and I deleted. Don't know what I was thinking at the time.
 
Upvote 0
Mariotwins said:
Then why do you object to expanding to 8 teams? A champ is a champ and deserves a title shot.
Click to expand...

If it's strictly limited to Conference Champs, and the games are on a truly neutral field... then I'm fine expanding as far as it needs to go. 8,10,12 whatever.
If it's based on subjective human-made rankings... be they polls, CPUs, or the new Shadow Council ... then I think it should be as limited as possible.
And I refuse to call it a "Playoff" until the PAC and SEC homefield advantage is done away with. It's just a BCS +1 with the Fellowship of the Ring deciding everything behind closed doors.
 
Upvote 0
Mariotwins said:
Instead of going undefeated against the toughest schedule in CFB history and lose to a 3 loss team because that 2 loss team wasn't invited in favor of a [Mark May]tier conference champion?

In 2011 you would have had to go down to #7 Boise State or #10 Fucking Bucky to get a 4th Champion.
Click to expand...

Yes, and they would probably lose in the first round. But who knows, they could win. As they say, that's why we play the game. Or should we just give the title this year to Alabama? Or should we just let Oregon/Stanford/Bama/LSU play in the tourney every year because we KNOW they are SOO much better than everyone else. I mean, Oregon, even with their embarrassing loss still has better wins than Baylor, FSU and OSU. I mean really, we all know that unless you're in the Pac12 or SEC you really don't matter.
 
Upvote 0
ulukinatme said:
Maybe a 3 loss team doesn't deserve to be in the playoff, but a 2 loss team could earn a spot if they're a conference champ and played a difficult schedule. If Texas and Oklahoma were at their typical strengths, and Texas dropped a close one to Oklahoma and a strong OOC team and still was the best team from the Big12, I'd be okay with them going to the playoff in front of say...a 1 loss non-AQ team.
Click to expand...

My message to Texas: WIN THE BIG GAMES! We aren't talking about a 1 loss non-AQ team, we are talking about a 1 loss AQ Conference champion. (There are 5 AQ conference and only 4 spots)
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top