• 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!

2017 CFB Bowl Games Open Thread

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
Jake said:
This system is far too subjective.
Click to expand...

Ditto that X eleventy-billion.

We're effectively back to the days when the championship was determined by votes in a poll, not by any team's play on the field.

Ooh, I think Notre Dame is prettiest. Let's give her the crown.

There will never be an absolutely flawless method to determine a true champion. We'd need the invention of the time machine for that. Because as it stands, every team never plays every other team, nor do they play any games under identical circumstances. If we had a working time machine, we could zap teams around on the first day of the season, and have everybody play everybody else from the exact same starting point. And the next week, we could do it all over again starting from the results of the past week. I don't wanna attempt to do the math on how many timeline outcomes you'd have by December, but whoever had the most wins in that situation could probably authentically claim they were the best team in the nation.

The approximation we have now is not satisfying. I never liked the idea of the playoff being determined by an elite little group of people (never mind who some of them were, or more accurately, who they weren't i.e. anyone who ever participated in the game). I can't take the trophy very seriously under these circumstances. Not offering to give tOSU's back, but I'd sure like to see some future system that leaves winning up to the coaches and players.
 
Upvote 0
Problem is, as I've argued for years, Playoffs don't determine who the best team is. They aren't even designed to do that. When the Patriots lost to the Giants in the NFL's playoffs, specifically, the Super Bowl - having beaten NYG once before - to finish 19-1, they were the best team in the NFL. But, they weren't the Champion.

Another classic example - when Villanova (25-10) won the NCAA tournament in 1985 over Georgetown (35-3)... a Georgetown team that had beaten them 2 times already. Villanova wasn't the best team... they were still the Champion.
 
Upvote 0
Jake said:
Some people will never get it. When one entity is given special treatment repeatedly of course they're going to be the only one to "prove" they deserved it - no else was afforded the chance.

"They won. See? That proves the committee was right."

And we wonder how we end up with some of the systems and processes we get on a national level. :roll1:
Click to expand...
EXACTLY... EX-FUCKING-ACTLY.

How many teams would've won the national championship had they been given the opportunity to win it all? It's easy to now say "well see we got it right".. .did you really? How do you know that OSU wasn't actually the right decision?
For all we know they put OSU in and we beat Clemson and then embarrass Georgia. Shoot maybe Wisconsin (who was a 2nd place team in the conference with 1 loss compared to 3rd and 1 loss in Alabama) gets hot and finds a way to win it all?

Oklahoma State in 2012 I believe would've had a very good chance to beat LSU... Instead we get a rematch. A REMATCH... A team that already lost to LSU and Oklahoma State was denied the chance to prove themselves.

The more Alabama wins the stronger that "benefit of the doubt" gets into the future.
 
Upvote 0
LostLassie said:
Ditto that X eleventy-billion.

We're effectively back to the days when the championship was determined by votes in a poll, not by any team's play on the field.

Ooh, I think Notre Dame is prettiest. Let's give her the crown.

There will never be an absolutely flawless method to determine a true champion. We'd need the invention of the time machine for that. Because as it stands, every team never plays every other team, nor do they play any games under identical circumstances. If we had a working time machine, we could zap teams around on the first day of the season, and have everybody play everybody else from the exact same starting point. And the next week, we could do it all over again starting from the results of the past week. I don't wanna attempt to do the math on how many timeline outcomes you'd have by December, but whoever had the most wins in that situation could probably authentically claim they were the best team in the nation.

The approximation we have now is not satisfying. I never liked the idea of the playoff being determined by an elite little group of people (never mind who some of them were, or more accurately, who they weren't i.e. anyone who ever participated in the game). I can't take the trophy very seriously under these circumstances. Not offering to give tOSU's back, but I'd sure like to see some future system that leaves winning up to the coaches and players.
Click to expand...

Which brings me back to you have to win your conference to even be considered for a CFP spot. That's something done on the field, for everyone to see - not a back room deal. Fuck you ND, join the ACC.

"But that won't get us the best teams!"

Who the fuck knows who "the best" teams are during the season? Hell, the polls are a game of musical chairs where every week they prove they don't "know" anything.

Someone still has to select four teams. But let it be from a smaller pool of teams who have already won something on the field. Is that perfect? Nope, but I'll take it over what we have now.
 
Upvote 0
Jake said:
Which brings me back to you have to win your conference to even be considered for a CFP spot. That's something done on the field, for everyone to see - not a back room deal.

"But that won't get us the best teams!"

Who the fuck knows who "the best" teams are during the season? Hell, the polls are a game of musical chairs where every week they prove they don't "know" anything.

Someone still has to select four teams. But let it be from a smaller pool of teams who have already won something on the field. Is that perfect? Nope, but I'll take it over what we have now.
Click to expand...

Should be 6:
Criteria

P5 Conf champs with < 3 losses
No playing FCS schools
G5 highest ranked <3 losses must be conf champs.

after this it becomes a messy beauty contest...
 
Upvote 0
Buckeyeskickbuttocks said:
Problem is, as I've argued for years, Playoffs don't determine who the best team is. They aren't even designed to do that. When the Patriots lost to the Giants in the NFL's playoffs, specifically, the Super Bowl - having beaten NYG once before - to finish 19-1, they were the best team in the NFL. But, they weren't the Champion.
Click to expand...
See I personally feel that's not right... It's black and white with extended playoffs. You win and you're better then the team you beat and if you don't you aren't. Show me not tell me.

Hstead said:
Have you forgotten last year already? OSU was given a "special" chance. To cry now about Bama not deserving or belonging is really really stupid to me. They won it all. They were the best team in college football. To sit here and act like they should have never been in the playoffs and only were granted a spot because they are getting special treatment embarrasses our fan base and sounds like Ped State fans.
Click to expand...
We didn't belong last year I'll give you that. It's easy to look back now and say that but it was proven on the field. We were given that opportunity like Alabama gets consistently and screwed it up. Had we kept it close vs Clemson last year perhaps it would've helped us this year too.

There's a reason criminals go to jail and there's isn't a panel of people going "Well I don't think they'll do it again so it's ok"... I guess it depends on what kind of person you are. I'm a very black or white and a right from wrong kind of person. There is no gray with me and sure there's flaws in that way of thinking too but the one advantage of that thinking is you're consistent and more importantly unbiased.

I'd like to see criteria that NEEDS to be met. For me here's where I'd start

1. Top ten teams who win their conference immediately are placed in a higher pool then those who aren't
- So in this case OSU, OU, Clemson, USC, and Georgia would've been only teams eligible

2. Quality of victories compared
- In this case OSU, OU, Clemson and Georgia would've been selected as the final four
 
Upvote 0
bukIpower said:
See I personally feel that's not right... It's black and white with extended playoffs. You win and you're better then the team you beat and if you don't you aren't. Show me not tell me.
Click to expand...
That is simply incorrect. I'll use Villanova - Georgetown 1985 as my proof:

Saturday, January 12 1985, Georgetown beat Villanova 52-50
Monday, February 11, 1985 Georgetown beat Villanova 57-50

Nova then proceeded to lose to St. John's in the Big East Tournament 74-89. Georgetown, meanwhile, beat St. John's 92-80 to capture the Big East Crown

Then....

On April 1, 1985, Villanova upset Georgetown 66-64 to with the Championship.

Georgetown was better overall 35-3 to 25-10, better head to head 2 games to 1, and better in their own conference tournament beating the team that beat Nova. They were two points worse on April 1st, though, so.....

What is it about that date that makes Nova better? Every single objective measure establishes the opposite.
 
Upvote 0
Buckeyeskickbuttocks said:
That is simply incorrect. I'll use Villanova - Georgetown 1985 as my proof:

Saturday, January 12 1985, Georgetown beat Villanova 52-50
Monday, February 11, 1985 Georgetown beat Villanova 57-50

Nova then proceeded to lose to St. John's in the Big East Tournament 74-89. Georgetown, meanwhile, beat St. John's 92-80 to capture the Big East Crown

Then....

On April 1, 1985, Villanova upset Georgetown 66-64 to with the Championship.

Georgetown was better overall 35-3 to 25-10, better head to head 2 games to 1, and better in their own conference tournament beating the team that beat Nova. They were two points worse on April 1st, though, so.....

What is it about that date that makes Nova better? Every single objective measure establishes the opposite.
Click to expand...
A team can scream all they want "we're the best" but if they don't prove it then what's it accomplish?

Just agree to disagree lol
 
Upvote 0
Another example of how the results on the field don't necessarily prove squat:

On October 6, 2007 41 point underdog, Stanford, beat then #2 USC 24-23.

So.. We can prove that Stanford, (4-8 unranked), was better than USC (11-2, Number 3/2 (AP/Coaches))?

I don't think so.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top