College Playoff

[BigWoof31]

But if you had to play games in Madison, Ann Arbor or Columbus (or hell, in Morgantown) in November, your "fast athletes" would suffer many more losses.

You had better hope not. Those type of athletes are exactly the type of kids UM is recruiting at OSU.

The league will adjust to him, he will not adjust to the league.

 

[BUCKYLE]

LSU fans were openly taunting Bama fans, "you want a rematch, come and get it!" - turns out it bit them in the ass.

Majority opinion (at least on BP) is that Ohio State fans didn't want a rematch and didn't agure for it.

Your claim is further damaged by the fact that both UM and Ohio State were blown out against supposed inferior opponents. Granted, that could have happened this year if Alabama had played Stanford in the Sugar Bowl and Okie State played LSU in the title game.

Yes, but the same SEC fans that didn't see a problem with it this year wanted nothing to do with it in '06. That was his point. Had tOSU played TSUN again, no one would have known that both were overrated and the SEC slurpfest would have been postponed another season at least

 

[Roundabout]

LSU fans were openly taunting Bama fans, "you want a rematch, come and get it!" - turns out it bit them in the ass.

Majority opinion (at least on BP) is that Ohio State fans didn't want a rematch and didn't agure for it.

Your claim is further damaged by the fact that both UM and Ohio State were blown out against supposed inferior opponents. Granted, that could have happened this year if Alabama had played Stanford in the Sugar Bowl and Okie State played LSU in the title game.

claim is damaged.... BS, I could care less about the results... The media and the country wanted no part of a repeat of a BIG10 game rematch..... change the BIG10 into SEC and now its a great idea.... the first BIG10 game was good.... the SEC game was a crap game to watch. take off the SEC biased glasses.... I thought it was all about getting the best two teams into the game.... going into the bowl games that year, it could be argued pretty easy that the BIG10 had the best two teams, that wasn't argued then. The reason for not having a rematch was because they had already played.... make it the SEC and now its all ok....

 

[zincfinger]

claim is damaged.... BS, I could care less about the results... The media and the country wanted no part of a repeat of a BIG10 game rematch..... change the BIG10 into SEC and now its a great idea.... the first BIG10 game was good.... the SEC game was a crap game to watch. take off the SEC biased glasses.... I thought it was all about getting the best two teams into the game.... going into the bowl games that year, it could be argued pretty easy that the BIG10 had the best two teams, that wasn't argued then. The reason for not having a rematch was because they had already played.... make it the SEC and now its all ok....

One other difference is that, if OSU and UM had played each other in the 2007 NC game, that would have been a back-to-back rematch. It wasn't for LSU/Alabama. I think that to a lot of people, a bowl rematch seems a little worse if it's in consecutive games.

 

[Bucknut24]

One other difference is that, if OSU and UM had played each other in the 2007 NC game, that would have been a back-to-back rematch. It wasn't for LSU/Alabama. I think that to a lot of people, a bowl rematch seems a little worse if it's in consecutive games.

IIRC FSU/UF played back to back in 1996

I know different conf, but still a back to back rematch

 

[BUCKYLE]

One other difference is that, if OSU and UM had played each other in the 2007 NC game, that would have been a back-to-back rematch. It wasn't for LSU/Alabama. I think that to a lot of people, a bowl rematch seems a little worse if it's in consecutive games.

Right, but that edition of The Game wasn't drown yourself boring either, so it's even.

 

[BigWoof31]

The media and the country wanted no part of a repeat of a BIG10 game rematch..... change the BIG10 into SEC and now its a great idea.... the first BIG10 game was good.... the SEC game was a crap game to watch. take off the SEC biased glasses.... I thought it was all about getting the best two teams into the game....

The exact same national media members who opposed an 06 rematch opposed a 11 rematch. Those that supported it in 06 were primarily based in the midwest (natch) and the 11 supporters were from Southern Media Markets.

There was not a measurable and clear influx of support for a rematch in 11 just because the teams were from the SEC. To claim otherwise is foolish.

The people who seem to support playoffs are national talking heads (Mike Lupica, I'm looking at you). They are the people who would prefer if the Yankees played the Redsox 365 days a year and JUST CAN'T UNDERSTAND WHY BOISE STATE WON'T GET ITS SHOT AT THE BIG BOYS???!!!!

 

[Apache]

I have been on both sides of the playoff issue. Part of me likes the fervor that is propagated by the current system. We get to argue a ton of what if's.

But perhaps it is time for a 4 team playoff. More means just money-making at the price of unpaid athletes.

But they will again wish to expand. I love football but unless you have a tournament with all teams, there will always be some bitching!

When the contract expires in 2013 or 14 they may move to 4. We shall see.

 

[zincfinger]

IIRC FSU/UF played back to back in 1996

I know different conf, but still a back to back rematch

Yes and no. The regular season UF/FSU game was the last game of the regular season for FSU, but the second-to-last game of the regular season for UF (they beat 'Bama the following week). More to the point, that was pre-BCS. The pollsters didn't choose that matchup. The Sugar Bowl committee automatically took UF as the SEC champion, and then took the best at-large team they could, which was FSU. Totally different scenario from the BCS.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

After reading most of this thread and many more just like it from other conferences the angst over the BCS is pure homerism.

Well, holy shit, Elwood...quite a but different tone from the last sentence in your first post on this board...

 

[Bucknut24]

Yes and no. The regular season UF/FSU game was the last game of the regular season for FSU, but the second-to-last game of the regular season for UF (they beat 'Bama the following week). More to the point, that was pre-BCS. The pollsters didn't choose that matchup. The Sugar Bowl committee automatically took UF as the SEC champion, and then took the best at-large team they could, which was FSU. Totally different scenario from the BCS.

was pre bcs, but they still had the Bowl Alliance which was basically the BCS without the Big 10 and Pac 10

 

[zincfinger]

was pre bcs, but they still had the Bowl Alliance which was basically the BCS without the Big 10 and Pac 10

But there was one significant difference. There didn't exist any "national championship game", with participants chosen by poll voters (with computer input). The bowl that year that turned out to be the de facto championship game had one automatic tie-in, and the other participant selected exclusively by the Sugar Bowl committee. Certainly, there is some overall resemblance between the Bowl Alliance and the BCS. But how those two teams were selected to face each other in the Sugar Bowl in '97 was completely different from how the participants are selected for the "national championship game" in the BCS system.

 

[Bucknut24]

But there was one significant difference. There didn't exist any "national championship game", with participants chosen by poll voters (with computer input). The bowl that year that turned out to be the de facto championship game had one automatic tie-in, and the other participant selected exclusively by the Sugar Bowl committee. Certainly, there is some overall resemblance between the Bowl Alliance and the BCS. But how those two teams were selected to face each other in the Sugar Bowl in '97 was completely different from how the participants are selected for the "national championship game" in the BCS system.

actually, it was the national title game, that was the purpose of the Bowl Alliance was to matchup the 2 best teams, and because Ariz St was #2 and was contracted to go to the Rose they had to go with the #3 team

 

[zincfinger]

actually, it was the national title game, that was the purpose of the Bowl Alliance was to matchup the 2 best teams, and because Ariz St was #2 and was contracted to go to the Rose they had to go with the #3 team

Yep, you're right. I misstated the Bowl Alliance a bit. I still think it's a little different though, as it didn't entirely depend on the voters. Consider it this way: if it had been the BCS, UF and FSU would not have played in the national championship game (unless the computers flipped UF over Arizona St.). The BCS national championship that year would have been FSU vs. Arizona State (again, with the computer caveat). So, I think the point still stands that, under the BCS, a national championship rematch between two teams that faced each other at the end of the season is going to be more disfavored than a national championship rematch between teams that faced each other earlier in the season.

 

[Oh8ch]

After reading most of this thread and many more just like it from other conferences the angst over the BCS is pure homerism. Everyone is jealous of the SEC. Everyone is looking for a way to break the lock the SEC has on the Title - and they don't care if they mangle college football to do it. Why not just eliminate the SEC from consideration for the BCSNC? That's what most of the complainers want - they want to pretend the SEC isn't really that far ahead of their favorite team/conference or claim they're cheating or that the system is rigged in their favor or they're .

You're a busy guy.

What is it you are looking for again?