College Playoff

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Because it makes money? I'm not anti-playoffs, it just doesn't tell you who the best team is any more than the BCS does.

(I AM in favor of a playoff system.....I'm just getting bkb's talking points out of the way so he'll shut the hell up for once. )

Douchebag

 

[Best Buckeye]

I failed. :(

Slacker

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

Playoffs don't actually work. It's a fucking joke when Cinderella gets hot after losing over half it's conference games and wins it all *cough*UConn*cough*

Fortunately, football playoffs don't give auto-bids to every piss-ant conference winner or conference tournamanet winner like basketball does. UConn got to the dance because college basketball insists on each conference having a post-season tournament in which almost everyone in the conference gets to complete, no matter how shitty their conference record was. So, a basketball team with a 9-9 conference record can get an auto-bid if they win their conference tournament (like UConn did). If the FBS went to a playoff system which only invited the top 8/12/16 teams based on BCS rankings (no auto-bids to any conference champ), then you won't have any .500 teams in the playoffs.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I failed. :(

I went... what... like a year? Pent up rage!

 

[buchtelgrad04]

Tell that "settled on the field" shit to the 2007 Patriots who beat the Giants in December and had to "settle it on the field" again.

Tell that to Georgetown... who settled the matter three fucking times in 1985

If they were truly the best team, they'd win whenever the game is played.

If you're the best, prove it when it counts. Don't tell us why you are the best, show us. The BCS does more telling and less showing.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

If they were truly the best team, they'd win whenever the game is played.

If you're the best, prove it when it counts. Don't tell us why you are the best, show us. The BCS does more telling and less showing.

Who determined "when it counts?"

Am I to understand that Ohio State v. Texas in September doesn't "count" but Ohio State v. Texas in January does?

If I beat you 3 fucking times, what more do I have to prove? It didn't count cause I didn't beat you in March?

Please.....

 

[knapplc]

Tell that "settled on the field" shit to the 2007 Patriots who beat the Giants in December and had to "settle it on the field" again.

Tell that to Georgetown... who settled the matter three fucking times in 1985

The 2007 Patsies have themselves to blame and nobody else for not winning that game. We're throwing out the concept of playoffs because the Pats pissed one down their leg?

1985 - who's your champion then, Syracuse or St. John's? Both beat Georgetown in the regular season.

 

[Muck]

Playoffs do work

So do bowl games.

Just because they don't do what you want them to do doesn't mean they don't work.

The problem is that a single elimination playoff doesn't do anymore to accomplish the goal that the majority of playoff proponents claim they desire.

It does no more to determine the best team in the country than a random poll.

So replacing one system that doesn't do what people say they want with another that does no more to accomplish said (claimed) desired goal is why some of us just laugh and roll our eyes.

 

[Buckeye86]

If they were truly the best team, they'd win whenever the game is played.

If you're the best, prove it when it counts. Don't tell us why you are the best, show us. The BCS does more telling and less showing.

This line of reasoning makes absolutely zero sense, particularly when applied to both team in rematch scenarios (Giants, Bama).

If they truly were the best team, they wouldn't have lost the first time. So please, just stop with that.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

The 2007 Patsies have themselves to blame and nobody else for not winning that game. We're throwing out the concept of playoffs because the Pats pissed one down their leg?

Dude... you can't have it both ways. If you are a "settle it on the field" guy, that Pats already did that. No need for the Super Bowl. The teams had already figured out who between them was "better"

or...

not... apparently.

1985 - who's your champion then, Syracuse or St. John's? Both beat Georgetown in the regular season.

Beats the shit out of me. All I know is Georgetown beat Nova 2 out of the 3 times they played (I incorrectly said 4 times) As far as I can tell they settled it 2 times already... but.. your playoff system made them "settle it again"

My point is not that playoffs suck. My point is that they are not inherently more legit than the BCS and it's not even close to self evident. As DBB points out.. really.. it comes down to what people's personal preferences are.

I don't really care about the BCS. It's fine, but it was better before they "tweaked" it into this crap we have today. That's a different rant, though.

 

[knapplc]

So do bowl games.

Just because they don't do what you want them to do doesn't mean they don't work.

The problem is that a single elimination playoff doesn't do anymore to accomplish the goal that the majority of playoff proponents claim they desire.

It does no more to determine the best team in the country than a random poll.

So replacing one system that doesn't do what people say they want with another that does no more to accomplish said (claimed) desired goal is why some of us just laugh and roll our eyes.

Which bowl games? The Poulon Weed-Eater bowl? The Meineke Car Car bowl? How do these help crown a realistic champion?

Wait, wait - are you talking about the consolation BCS bowls? The ones where the winner gets a little trophy and a participation ribbon? Those bowls help crown a champion?

Oh... wait. You're talking about that ONE GAME, between two teams, voted on by the media and some algorithms. That game.

And to you, that one game is all that's necessary to crown a champion because that's what the pundits and computers tell you.

I'll bet you just laugh and laugh and laugh at all those other silly sports that use a playoff to crown some hollow championship, while you sit back and watch college football and women's figure skating, secure in the knowledge that these sports - and these sports only - use a proper method for determining a champ.

Because whereas a single-elimination tournament takes the most-deserving four or eight or sixteen teams, the popularity contest takes two teams, and that's "better."

Totally see your point now. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[buchtelgrad04]

Who determined "when it counts?"

Am I to understand that Ohio State v. Texas in September doesn't "count" but Ohio State v. Texas in January does?

If I beat you 3 fucking times, what more do I have to prove? It didn't count cause I didn't beat you in March?

Please.....

And if we never played, who is some bumfuck writer in a suit to tell me that another team "passes the eyeball test," so they get into the title game over me? To play a team they already lost to? If a team I beat 3 times already is the only thing standing in my way of the trophy, who's fault is it if I lose?

Being a championship team is just as mental as it is physical.

 

[Best Buckeye]

Once again, for like the 5 millionth time...Playoffs won't work because no matter how many teams are invited there will ALWAYS be a team who thinks they should be in..

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

Am I to understand that Ohio State v. Texas in September doesn't "count" but Ohio State v. Texas in January does?

Actually, yes. When Texas came to The Shoe, Troy Smith was just coming off his two-game suspension. He was rusty and Justin Zwick wasn't exactly lighting it up either, and yet we still were a Hamby-drop away from winning. The team clearly gelled throughout the rest of the 2005 season under Smith, and were a totally different team at season's end. You mean to tell me that the Ohio State team that dismantled Notre Dame to the tune of 617 yards wouldn't have beaten Texas had they played the Longhorns instead of the Irish?

 

[knapplc]

Dude... you can't have it both ways. If you are a "settle it on the field" guy, that Pats already did that. No need for the Super Bowl. The teams had already figured out who between them was "better"

or...

not... apparently.

You can't parse my point into separate pieces. The regular season does not exist without a playoff, so winning the regular season head-to-head doesn't mean a thing for the question of "winning it on the field."

Beats the shit out of me. All I know is Georgetown beat Nova 2 out of the 3 times they played (I incorrectly said 4 times) As far as I can tell they settled it 2 times already... but.. your playoff system made them "settle it again"

My point is not that playoffs suck. My point is that they are not inherently more legit than the BCS and it's not even close to self evident. As DBB points out.. really.. it comes down to what people's personal preferences are.

I don't really care about the BCS. It's fine, but it was better before they "tweaked" it into this crap we have today. That's a different rant, though.

It's not "my playoff system." It's the kind of round-robin/seeded tournament system that sports have been using for - literally - millennia. The bowl system has been around for what? Fifty years? It's such a wildly successful method of determining a champion that a grand total of zero other sports, worldwide, use a similar system. So it's not mine, it's yours. Or, rather, anyone who advocates this particular method of choosing a champion.

It's not a personal preference. It's the most logical system. And we know that because it's been used since.... forever.