Sports Central Message Boards

Sports Central Message Boards (https://www.sports-central.org/community/boards/index.php)
-   College Football (https://www.sports-central.org/community/boards/forumdisplay.php?f=15)
-   -   B(C)S talk 2006 (https://www.sports-central.org/community/boards/showthread.php?t=15112)

#99 10-16-2006 06:08 PM

B(C)S talk 2006
 
Right now, it's Ohio State #1 and USC #2. As I'm sure most people here would be quick to agree, USC is in major trouble. If current form continues, there's no way they get through the upcoming three-game stretch of Oregon, Cal, and Notre Dame without at least one loss (my money is on Cal to do the deed).

Auburn ahead of WVU (weak Mountaineer schedule or not) is yet ANOTHER strike against the B(C)S. Auburn still lost to an opponent that USC hung 50 points on. It'll be forgotten, unfortunately, b/c that USC win over Arkansas happened in week 1.

My top five, for argument's sake:
1. Ohio State
2. Michigan
3. USC
4. West Virginia
5. Texas (their only loss was a toughy to Ohio State and they're still untouchable in the Big 12 -- though that conference sucks, too)

It's a safe -- but not guaranteed -- bet that Ohio State/Michigan will claim one spot in the national title game, should they both be unbeaten when they meet at the end of the season. With USC looking wobbly at the moment, if they pick up a loss and WVU runs the table... crappy Big East (I mean, it's a lousy football conference) or not, Mountaineers should be the other half of that title game. This would, once again, open the current system up to scrutiny and ridicule, given that about half the teams in the current top ten would likely be favored against WVU.

Richard the Lionheart 10-16-2006 06:19 PM

I don't see how this is a problem created by the BCS. I too am assuming a USC loss comming up, which if that happens, means that the winner of UM/OSU will probably play the winner of Louisville/WVA. If that happens...I don't see the problem. One loss teams are always so quick to complain...well, this isn't the NFL...this is NCAA football...if you loose, you are probably not the best team in the country that year. Maybe WVA wouldn't deserve to be in the game, and would get creemed by UM or OSU...maybe, but we don't know for sure how good they are because they would not have lost. They wouldn't have made a mistake to cost themselves.

Fact is, Texas is not the best team in the country...that has already been established...on their home field no less.

Either is Auburn...I think Arkansas did a pretty good job of proving that.

Notre Dame? You must be joking.

Florida? Not a chance. They were given about 150 opportunities to win that game with Auburn and squandered them all. They are too sloppy, overly penalized, and are not good enough yet...next year with Tebow, who knows? Maybe if they stop with the personal fouls and holding calls every play to give that horrible Auburn offense new life. This is not the year for them, however. I exepect them to loose again.

So who does that leave us with? Obviously the only two teams who no one is sure about...WVU and Louisville. Either one of them undefeated should make it in before a one loss team who has already proven they don't belong. The point of this whole system is to settle controvery when voters aren't sure who is better (i.e. Michigan and Nebraska in '97) not to give teams new life when they already FAILED to play high caliber football each and every week. You are never guaranteed a second chance in college football, but I would like to see undefeated teams get ONE chance.

#99 10-16-2006 08:22 PM

I agree 100% with you, Ricky. I'm all for an all-undefeated national championship game, even if one of those teams does happen to come out of the Big East.

Just to clarify -- and this is not necessarily "my gripe" per se -- but there will definitely be those calling for a playoff, even if this comes to pass. If West Virginia makes the nat'l title game as an unbeaten, I think it'd be great and a rare example of the current formula working. But to say that they were tested as much as some SEC, Pac 10, or Big Ten teams competing for the same spot would be erroneous.

MountaineerDave 10-18-2006 02:41 PM

Tested or not doesn't make them any worse than Auburn, 99.

Georgia (who's unredeemingly and incredibly poorly prepared week to week) thought so little of WVU last January that they got their hats handed to them. While I doubt Tressel or Carroll would permit such a thing to happen to his team, there's no guaranteeing it, and besides... who says an undefeated WVU isn't better than USC or OSU anyway?

The only reason I'd ever support a playoff, btw, is so that the talking heads would shut up about the Big East sucking so much. Where's the Pac 10 this year? Where's the AC-bleeping-C? The Big 12 stinks out loud, sans Texas and OU (and maybe including Missouri, but absolutely no one else is in the conversation--yes, even Nebraska). And I don't carry that much respect for the SEC around in my pocket, either. I'd love a playoff that ended in a title game pitting WVU and Louisville for a couple years in a row. I'd absolutely LOVE it.

(But, I don't want a playoff.)

da12ken 10-18-2006 03:02 PM

Then don't talk about them Dave lol.

#99 10-18-2006 03:43 PM

Sorry, Dave, but I just had to talk about it ;)

I admit, I'm a playoffs advocate. Louisville may very well be the best team in the world, but what we're talking about here is effectively treating the regular season -- from day one -- as the playoffs. That spells inequality. Such is college football.

Let me just ask, suppose a great team like Cal wins out (that'd include beating USC on the road) and there's only one unbeaten left at season's end. Why is Cal's argument to play in the nat'l title game any less valid than an Auburn or a Texas or potentially an Ohio State or West Virginia? It's not.

buckeyefan78 10-18-2006 04:11 PM

So you're saying an 11-1 Cal team has the same right to play in the NC game as an undefeated Ohio State or West Virginia?

#99 10-18-2006 05:04 PM

No, read it again. I'm saying that in a hypothetical situation, at season's end, if only one team was unbeaten, that there would be a host of 1-loss teams that would have legit claims to play in that game.

Alex 10-18-2006 05:46 PM

I don't see it happening. Either West Virginia or Louisville should be undefeated, saving us from that potential mess of trying to figure out which 1-loss team deserves to be in.

MountaineerDave 10-18-2006 05:48 PM

Always reserving the right to be proven wrong, Cal, imo, is the best one-loss team in the land. With the possible exception of Tennessee...
That said, Cal lost their right to beat Tennessee to a NC game by losing to Tennessee. I'm not sure Tennessee finishes with one loss, but...
for argument's sake, say WVU beats UofL but loses to Rutgers, who in turn loses to U of L, leaving the Big East in a 3-way tie of once-beatens...
I'd prefer to see Tennessee take on undefeated OSU than Cal, based solely on that one game.

What's been left out of the discussion here, and I'm surprised by its omission, honestly, is this:
What if UofM goes to the horseshoe and wins by a single point?
Assume Cal wins out. Assume that everyone who can win out, does. (WVU, for my sake, that is).

Who goes to the NC game?
Right now, there's a fairly strong suggestion, numerically, that the NC game could be an OSU-Michigan rematch. The top three currently have such a strong lead, getting any other team into that top 3 will be quite a feat. A narrow margin of victory by who will at that point likely be the BCS #1&2 might keep both alive in the BCS polls...

Personally, I think that they may be the top two teams in the land, and I wouldn't be all that put out by being left out of that NC game (I'd be pissed, but I'd also kinda understand; I'm not an idiot. WVU hasn't beaten anyone yet. Still have UofL and undefeated Rutgers, as well a one-loss Pitt to play, so much moving up can be done between now and then.)

#99 10-18-2006 07:20 PM

Excellent points. Huzzah! The topic is alive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MountaineerDave (Post 219939)
Always reserving the right to be proven wrong, Cal, imo, is the best one-loss team in the land. With the possible exception of Tennessee...
That said, Cal lost their right to beat Tennessee to a NC game by losing to Tennessee. I'm not sure Tennessee finishes with one loss, but...
for argument's sake, say WVU beats UofL but loses to Rutgers, who in turn loses to U of L, leaving the Big East in a 3-way tie of once-beatens...
I'd prefer to see Tennessee take on undefeated OSU than Cal, based solely on that one game.

I completely buy that. I think head-to-head should be a big factor. The question then, however, becomes who's loss is more significant (assuming, for the sake of argument, all teams win out). For example, Tennessee falling to Florida or Texas falling to Ohio State? Or, heck, the losers of the OSU/Mich, WVU/L'ville games?


Quote:

Originally Posted by MountaineerDave (Post 219939)
What's been left out of the discussion here, and I'm surprised by its omission, honestly, is this:
What if UofM goes to the horseshoe and wins by a single point?
Assume Cal wins out. Assume that everyone who can win out, does. (WVU, for my sake, that is).

Who goes to the NC game?
Right now, there's a fairly strong suggestion, numerically, that the NC game could be an OSU-Michigan rematch. The top three currently have such a strong lead, getting any other team into that top 3 will be quite a feat. A narrow margin of victory by who will at that point likely be the BCS #1&2 might keep both alive in the BCS polls...

Personally, I think that they may be the top two teams in the land, and I wouldn't be all that put out by being left out of that NC game (I'd be pissed, but I'd also kinda understand; I'm not an idiot. WVU hasn't beaten anyone yet. Still have UofL and undefeated Rutgers, as well a one-loss Pitt to play, so much moving up can be done between now and then.)

This is a strong argument for the B(C)S poll, but if I were a WVU fan in that situation, I'd be absolutely livid. Michigan would have proven
on the field that it can beat Ohio State. Ultimately, that's the one method we'd all like to see used when determining the two NC game representatives -- head-to-head competition.

buckeyefan78 10-18-2006 07:31 PM

How is this even a debate? If there are 2 unbeatens...they go. If there is one unbeaten...they go and if there is a one-loss team that had their lone loss to the unbeaten...they should go for the rematch.

Let's say...
One unbeaten: Ohio State
One-loss teams: Michigan, Cal, WVU, Louisville, Tennessee, Texas

Michigan and Texas lost to Ohio State. Michigan lost on the road, Texas at home...easy...Ohio State vs. Michigan again.

Let's say...
One unbeaten: Michigan
One-loss teams: USC, WVU, Ohio State, Louisville, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin

Wisconsin and Ohio State lost to Michigan. Wisconsin lost on the road, OSU lost at home...easy...Michigan vs. Wisconsin again.

Now that is the fair way...I don't see how that can be argued. I hate it and would jump off a cliff if OSU and Blue played again...just saying.

Don't mind me though...I still have hope we finish undefeated and somehow go down to #3 in the BCS so we can go to the Rose Bowl. I don't want to play in that spaceship out in the desert for the 4th time in 5 years.

#99 10-18-2006 09:29 PM

If that's the case, then why would Michigan (assuming both WVU and L'ville have losses) even bother playing the regular season finale if it amounts to nothing more than an exhibition game? The point is that they already played each other.

HibachiDG 10-18-2006 09:36 PM

Quote:

Let's say...
One unbeaten: Michigan
One-loss teams: USC, WVU, Ohio State, Louisville, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin

Wisconsin and Ohio State lost to Michigan. Wisconsin lost on the road, OSU lost at home...easy...Michigan vs. Wisconsin again.

Now that is the fair way...I don't see how that can be argued. I hate it and would jump off a cliff if OSU and Blue played again...just saying.
You don't see how this can be argued? Seriously? I mean, if it happens, I'll gladly make the argument. I mean, WVU/Louisville going through their schedule with only one loss is certainly more impressive than Wisconsin doing it. Since Wisconsin doesn't play Ohio State, WVU and Louisville both play schedules as good as the one Wisconsin plays. Louisville's slightly stronger than WVU. I think if The Ville or WVU both have 1 loss, then the advantage there goes to the team that won the head to head.

Tennessee if they finished with one loss is clearly going to the National Title game. Tennessee's schedule is much more difficult than Wisconsin's. USC would have an argument over Wisconsin, especially if Arkansas stays hot.

I think if all these teams finish with one loss, Wisconsin is simply an after thought.

Alex 10-18-2006 09:56 PM

Wisconsin has no shot. They won't have a big enough victory to get past other one loss teams. Right now they're looking at Iowa and/or PSU as their biggest win. Even as a PSU fan, it's not really one they can hang their hat on this season. And Iowa lost to Indiana. 'Nuff said.

Auburn should win out and finish 11-1. However, they're out of the race unless Arkansas drops two SEC games (possible since they play Tennessee and LSU, but both are at home). Hard to justify them getting into the MNC game if they don't even make it to the conference championship game. I think winning your own conference should be a pre-requisite for playing for the MNC. Right now Tennessee needs Florida to lose to Georgia (doubtful that Vandy or Carolina will beat them) in order to get to the SEC title game. Like Auburn, if they don't win their own conference, they don't deserve to play for the MNC.

The mystery guest in all of this could be Arkansas. Even though Southern Cal smoked them, if the Hawgs win out they would have wins against Auburn, Tennessee, LSU and Florida in the SEC title game. That's four impressive victories that few teams would be able to match. Ohio State (Texas, Iowa (maybe), Penn State (maybe), and Michigan) or Michigan (Notre Dame, Penn State (maybe), Iowa (maybe), and Ohio State) and Southern Cal (Arkansas, Nebraska, Cal, Oregon, Notre Dame) are potentially the only ones who could.

I'm hoping Southern Cal or West Virginia goes undefeated just so we don't have to hear another month-plus of whining about the BCS screwing teams over.

MountaineerDave 10-19-2006 11:18 AM

Only, Alex, someone will still be whining even if the MNC game is a matchup of two unbeatens, just because people love to whine.

Tuberville will whine. It's his lot in life. Should there be three unbeatens (OSU, USC and WVU), WVU will whine. Not a lot. At least, I don't think the coach will whine that much, but fans will. I'll whine for a minute, but honestly, will just be happy with going 13-0 (whipping, say, Michigan in the Rose Bowl, or something like that :) )

As for WVU's coach's stance on a playoff, while I'm sure he reserves the right to change his mind should the Mountaineers be on the outside looking in at season's end, he's NOT a playoff guy. He's not a deeply committed person, either, though, so if it were worked out, he'd attend a playoff if he made it, but he doesn't generally support a playoff. (Also, he is asked on a weekly basis what to make of the betterment of the Big East, and usually responds with a "well, we keep winning games and they keep losing games. We just have to keep winning games and maybe those media types will start understanding we play football just as good here as anywhere." I think the "they" there is usually the ACC, but not definitively, and those media types refer to well... everyone not in the room with him.)
Yet.

tobynosker 10-19-2006 11:33 AM

My high-school football team went unbeaten last season and won the state title.

Following the state championship game, the media poll was released and it had my high-school ranked third in the state behind the two teams they beat on their way to the state championship.

My high school is 7-0 this year, averaging 41 points per game and only giving up six points per game.

They are not even ranked in the top-five in the state this season.

Why?

Because they are not the sexy pick.

Nearly every year in the B(C)S, we have teams that whine because they were simply left out by not being the sexy pick.

#99 10-19-2006 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex (Post 219985)
I'm hoping Southern Cal or West Virginia goes undefeated just so we don't have to hear another month-plus of whining about the BCS screwing teams over.

I hear what you're saying and, really, no one likes whining. But I'm hoping that either both or neither go undefeated for the very opposite reason. Lucking into a scenario where only two teams are unbeaten and have an undisputed right to the title game once every four years is hardly a success. In no other sport in the WORLD does this kind of nonsense exist.

And tacking on to what Tobynosker said, we should do away with preseason polls, too. "Sexiness" is one of those unspoken factors when trying to evaluate teams before a single game has been played.

buckeyefan78 10-19-2006 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by #99 (Post 219983)
If that's the case, then why would Michigan (assuming both WVU and L'ville have losses) even bother playing the regular season finale if it amounts to nothing more than an exhibition game? The point is that they already played each other.

Well...that's why the BCS is a sham and so are playoffs.

What you guys fail to understand is that if Ohio State was the lone unbeaten and several teams had one loss (Michigan, Cal, Tennessee, Texas, Auburn, Wisconsin for example), the Wolverines would be the only team that could honestly claim they too would be undefeated if they didn't have to play OSU in the regular season.

So let's say Ohio State beats Michigan and they put Auburn vs. the Buckeyes in the title game. Both Auburn and Michigan lost one game but Auburn has a shot at the national title despite losing to a weaker opponent than Michigan in the regular season.

How is that fair?

tobynosker 10-19-2006 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buckeyefan78
the Wolverines would be the only team that could honestly claim they too would be undefeated if they didn't have to play OSU in the regular season.
Texas, anyone?


And, if Auburn were to beat Ohio State in the National Championship game in this poorly produced, hypothetical situation, even the inferior Arkansas Razorbacks would have a right to whine.

#99 10-19-2006 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buckeyefan78 (Post 220107)
Well...that's why the BCS is a sham and so are playoffs.

What you guys fail to understand is that if Ohio State was the lone unbeaten and several teams had one loss (Michigan, Cal, Tennessee, Texas, Auburn, Wisconsin for example), the Wolverines would be the only team that could honestly claim they too would be undefeated if they didn't have to play OSU in the regular season.

So let's say Ohio State beats Michigan and they put Auburn vs. the Buckeyes in the title game. Both Auburn and Michigan lost one game but Auburn has a shot at the national title despite losing to a weaker opponent than Michigan in the regular season.

How is that fair?

It's fair because there is tangible proof on the field that Ohio State is better than Michigan. They've had their shot. Unless that regular season finale is suddenly recognized as the national championship game and the season ends after that, it's pointless to have the rematch. Suppose Michigan does beat Ohio State in the rematch, what then? Michigan is unquestionably the best team in the land? I don't think so.

But it's the first sentence in your post that strikes me, Buckeye. If you're not a fan of either the B(C)S or playoffs, then... what are you for? A return to the polls???

buckeyefan78 10-19-2006 03:38 PM

I really don't care about the polls either. I'm a staunch traditionalist.

The scenario you are describing happened in 1996 when Florida beat FSU in a rematch (though since they are Florida schools I assume no one had a problem with it and they are God's gift to football anyway).

Who do you recognize as the national champion that year?

You are punishing teams for having the lone unbeaten on their regular season schedule...no matter when that game falls. If that's the case, non-conference scheduling will get even weaker for all college football teams...though I don't see how that is mathematically possible for the SEC.

tobynosker 10-19-2006 03:47 PM

KB, I am starting to get the feeling that buckeye likes to ignore all of my opinions on matters, as well.


And since I couldn't give two ****s about getting involved in a "Big Ten scheduling is tougher than SEC scheduling" debate, can someone just tell me that if Texas and Michigan's only losses this season come at the hands of Ohio State, why should the Longhorns lose out on a chance to play for the National Title over the Wolverines?

buckeyefan78 10-19-2006 03:52 PM

Nice try toby. You edited your previous post at 3:39 PM to add a quote of mine along with "Texas anyone?" My last post was at 3:38 PM...a minute before you edited and added. Your original post didn't have my quote or "Texas anyone?" in it.

Not that I would have answered you anyway. It's posts like that (#23) which make me avoid you. Please quit stalking me.

tobynosker 10-19-2006 04:00 PM

Actually, I made a spelling correction at 3:39 and had previously added the "Texas, anyone?" after my original post but prior to #99's comment.

But, thanks for the reply!

buckeyefan78 10-19-2006 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tobynosker (Post 220130)
Actually, I made a spelling correction at 3:39 and had previously added the "Texas, anyone?" after my original post but prior to #99's comment.

But, thanks for the reply!

You're welcome. Now please stop stalking me.

Richard the Lionheart 10-19-2006 05:52 PM

I personally believe that if there is one unbeaten and only one, a title game is unnecessary. I've talked about this all before, but that's why I'm in favor of going back to the traditional bowl games, with an added feature. If there are two undefeated Big 6 conference teams after the bowl games, they play. This game would only happen when necessary. It wouldn't be an every year thing. Home field in this game would go to the team with the best strength of schedule. In the event of three undefeated teams, the team with the highest strength of sched. would play the winner of a game between the other two on its home field for the NC. That should settle all disputes, and leave us most of the time with all of the regional traditions that made college football what it is--with the added feature that it would encourage teams to schedule harder non-conference schedules. And oh yeah, a game like this would be bigger than the Super Bowl.

#99 10-19-2006 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buckeyefan78 (Post 220121)
I really don't care about the polls either. I'm a staunch traditionalist.

I don't know what this means. Little help?

buckeyefan78 10-19-2006 08:28 PM

It means I believe in college football regionalization...as the game was in the 60s, 70s, and the early 80s.

I don't see any need for a playoff, the BCS, or a national champion...mythical or "real."

Alex 10-19-2006 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ricky the Kid (Post 220170)
I personally believe that if there is one unbeaten and only one, a title game is unnecessary. I've talked about this all before, but that's why I'm in favor of going back to the traditional bowl games, with an added feature. If there are two undefeated Big 6 conference teams after the bowl games, they play. This game would only happen when necessary. It wouldn't be an every year thing. Home field in this game would go to the team with the best strength of schedule. In the event of three undefeated teams, the team with the highest strength of sched. would play the winner of a game between the other two on its home field for the NC. That should settle all disputes, and leave us most of the time with all of the regional traditions that made college football what it is--with the added feature that it would encourage teams to schedule harder non-conference schedules. And oh yeah, a game like this would be bigger than the Super Bowl.

I agree completely. The +1 game is the best thing that could happen to college football.

But we can't have it. It will be too difficult on the players. So we can have an extra regular season game but it wouldn't be possible for 2-3 teams to play an extra game or two to determine a true national champion? Makes perfect sense. :rolleyes:

Richard the Lionheart 10-20-2006 10:07 AM

Yeah, too bad. In less than ten years I'm almost positive we'll have some sort of playoff, and then college football will be on the path to destruction as far as I'm concerned.

KevinBeane 10-20-2006 01:06 PM

This is partially a devil's advocate point, but one I think still needs to be addressed.

The thing that makes adding a conditional National Championship game more difficult than it looks - and not comparable to adding a 12th regular season games - is preparation and logistics. You can't tell a city/stadium, "Prepare for millions of visitors and hold your 90,000 seat stadium open for the biggest game of the year in four weeks....maybe.

It's especially difficult when you consider the financial aspects of it. Hotels can prepare for the biggest week of the year, and then face a crises as the need for a National Championship game, at the eleventh hour, evaporates and tens of thousands of people cancel their reservations. And that's just one small aspect of it. There's tons of others from city planning, stadium issues, and reservations, etc. It takes months to adequately prepare for big sporting events and I can understand the problems that would arise if it was only a tentative situation.

If I recall correctly, the NFL had to move heavens and Earth to move the SB a week up in 2001 and had to completely derail a huge automotive convention scheduled for the Super Dome that week (something that many in the auto industry's entire working year revolves around) and pay the group holding the auto convention huge, huge, huge amounts of money to compensate.

Even something smallish, like bracket buster weekend in college basketball, the NCAA takes care to announce who will be participating, and who will be hosting, before the season starts and before we know who will benefit by it. The reason for this is so that proper preperations can take place.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ricky the Kid (Post 220286)
and then college football will be on the path to destruction as far as I'm concerned.

As in, you won't like it as much, or do you think something "destructive" will happen as a result? If so, what?

Richard the Lionheart 10-20-2006 06:48 PM

By "as far as I'm concerned" I meant "for me", not "that is my opinion on what will happen to college football". Sorry that was confusing, and still is.

Maybe I was being a little overdramatic, but I certainly think a playoff system would be very, very bad for college football. It would take away from the excitement and importance of regular season games.

Besides the importance of every regular season game, another thing which separates college football from every other support is the traditions and regional rivalries. I don't think continuing to stray from the old system helps either, in fact I know it doesn't.

Also, I think all this focus on the national picture, and the turning away from regional and conference focus is very bad for college football. Fact is, only four or five teams have a serious chance at the National Championship at this point in the season as far as I'm concerned...that means, if the focus is solely on the National Championship, the students and fans of all the other schools really have nothing much to get into. When the focus is on conference titles and regional rivalries, dozens of other schools have a vested interest in the games.

That is why I think you take everything back to how it was, and add in a little clause in case there is still a dispute. As far as the drawbacks to it, your points are good ones. I just don't agree that it would be as big of a problem as you think. It would just be another home game for the host of the game. Most people wouldn't be traveling at all except fans of the visiting school who somehow got tickets, and media. With two weeks notice, I'll be they could be accomodated very well.

#99 10-20-2006 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ricky the Kid (Post 220341)
Maybe I was being a little overdramatic, but I certainly think a playoff system would be very, very bad for college football. It would take away from the excitement and importance of regular season games.

Besides the importance of every regular season game, another thing which separates college football from every other support is the traditions and regional rivalries. I don't think continuing to stray from the old system helps either, in fact I know it doesn't.

You're right. The regular season in every other sport is completely meaningless, obviously. What? "Longer" does not mean "irrelevant."

Here's one that we've actually seen before: you finish undefeated, yet are rated third in the precious formula and locked out of the national title game. Tell me, how important was that team's regular season then?

I don't see how regional rivalries would be affected, considering they're largely part of the regular season and conference schedules.

Richard the Lionheart 10-21-2006 02:28 AM

I didn't say every other sport had a meaningless regular season. What I said was, that creating a playoff system would make the regular season less meaningful. Do you really want to debate this? If there was a playoff system, Ohio State could pretty much rest assured that it could loose the Michigan game and still get in. (This is also one of the ways rivalry games would be made less meaningful. In the old system and even this one a loss to Michigan in almost any year ruins OSU's season) USC could loose to Cal or Notre Dame--hell, Auburn could even afford to drop a second game and probably sneak in. Of course under this situation the regular season doesn't mean as much anymore, because you are allowed to have an off weak. Every game is no longer a must win.

Finishing undefeated and ranking third in the polls is a tough break. Doesn't happen very often. If they scheduled better it wouldn't have happened to them. Besides all that, I agree it sucks. Anyway, under the system I would like to see thats not a problem--and it wouldnt rely on an every year set playoff. And anyway, Auburn's season that year wasn't meaningless anyway. They went undefeated, won their conference, their bowl game, and beat Alabama. This is college football--not the NFL. Just because some sportswriters didn't give them some trophy doesn't take away from anything they accomplished that year.

KevinBeane 10-21-2006 11:41 AM

Army-Navy hasn't been relevant in terms of involving two power teams for decades. Yet, they still put it on national television and still pack the Vet (err, the Linc) for it. Every other sport at every level in the United States has both a playoff and a regular season not lacking in luster, including gripping rivalry games with nothing more than pride at stake. I don't see this as an either/or situation where we cannot have it both ways at all.

HibachiDG 10-21-2006 11:58 AM

But what about games like Michigan/PSU from last season? The rivalries will be fine, but that game has so much more pain for PSU fans because there is not a playoff or any system that would give them a second shot with 2 undefeateds.

eric 10-22-2006 05:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Graham (Post 220428)
But what about games like Michigan/PSU from last season? The rivalries will be fine, but that game has so much more pain for PSU fans because there is not a playoff or any system that would give them a second shot with 2 undefeateds.

Agreed.it will be the same with this year's OSU/Michigan Game or with ND losing to Michigan or Texas to OSU as long as Michigan or OSU stay undefeated some really good one loss team is going to get left out of a shot at the NC.

buckeyefan78 10-22-2006 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eric (Post 220530)
Agreed.it will be the same with this year's OSU/Michigan Game or with ND losing to Michigan or Texas to OSU as long as Michigan or OSU stay undefeated some really good one loss team is going to get left out of a shot at the NC.

And if you lost...work harder. What's wrong with that? (runs in opposite direction)

eric 10-23-2006 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buckeyefan78 (Post 220552)
And if you lost...work harder. What's wrong with that? (runs in opposite direction)


Nothing wrong with that, except that when you have a game that is decided by a controversial call or non-call and that is your only loss, there is redemption available in a playoff system.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:06 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.