Author Topic: Farewell BCS... (Read 4623 times)

michigancat · « **Reply #25 on:** January 09, 2014, 09:07:08 PM »

we won't get snubbed

michigancat · « **Reply #26 on:** January 09, 2014, 09:07:41 PM »

But I do wish they let computers choose the participants.

Katpappy · « **Reply #27 on:** January 09, 2014, 09:13:21 PM »

Quote from: michigancat on January 09, 2014, 09:07:41 PM

But I do wish they let computers choose the participants.

They don't like computers because it doesn't take into account the number of eyes factor. This is a very important consideration, due to the money involved.

michigancat · « **Reply #28 on:** January 09, 2014, 09:17:56 PM »

Quote from: Katdaddy on January 09, 2014, 09:13:21 PM

Quote from: michigancat on January 09, 2014, 09:07:41 PM
But I do wish they let computers choose the participants.
They don't like computers because it doesn't take into account the number of eyes factor. This is a very important consideration, due to the money involved.

no, it won't

Katpappy · « **Reply #29 on:** January 09, 2014, 09:31:18 PM »

Quote from: michigancat on January 09, 2014, 09:17:56 PM

Quote from: Katdaddy on January 09, 2014, 09:13:21 PM
Quote from: michigancat on January 09, 2014, 09:07:41 PM
But I do wish they let computers choose the participants.
They don't like computers because it doesn't take into account the number of eyes factor. This is a very important consideration, due to the money involved.

no, it won't

who, what, when?

p1k3 · « **Reply #30 on:** January 09, 2014, 10:08:48 PM »

we have to go 12-0 to get in. Other "name" schools can afford to lose a game or two.

michigancat · « **Reply #31 on:** January 09, 2014, 10:36:32 PM »

Michigan State or Baylor would have been in this year.

Oregon would have been in 2012

OKlahoma State and Stanford would have been in 2011

TCU, Stanford, or Wisconsin would have been in 2010.

All but TCU had at least one loss.

Bottom line don't be friggin idiots.

Katpappy · « **Reply #32 on:** January 09, 2014, 10:53:52 PM »

Quote from: michigancat on January 09, 2014, 10:36:32 PM

Michigan State or Baylor would have been in this year.

Oregon would have been in 2012

OKlahoma State and Stanford would have been in 2011

TCU, Stanford, or Wisconsin would have been in 2010.

All but TCU had at least one loss.

Bottom line don't be friggin idiots.

I know you mean well, but the majority of sports fans know how this works.

michigancat · « **Reply #33 on:** January 09, 2014, 11:02:23 PM »

Quote from: Katdaddy on January 09, 2014, 10:53:52 PM

Quote from: michigancat on January 09, 2014, 10:36:32 PM
Michigan State or Baylor would have been in this year.

Oregon would have been in 2012

OKlahoma State and Stanford would have been in 2011

TCU, Stanford, or Wisconsin would have been in 2010.

All but TCU had at least one loss.

Bottom line don't be friggin idiots.
I know you mean well, but the majority of sports fans know how this works.

Are you disputing what I posted or just being a moron? Or both?

Katpappy · « **Reply #34 on:** January 09, 2014, 11:12:02 PM »

Quote from: michigancat on January 09, 2014, 11:02:23 PM

Quote from: Katdaddy on January 09, 2014, 10:53:52 PM
Quote from: michigancat on January 09, 2014, 10:36:32 PM
Michigan State or Baylor would have been in this year.

Oregon would have been in 2012

OKlahoma State and Stanford would have been in 2011

TCU, Stanford, or Wisconsin would have been in 2010.

All but TCU had at least one loss.

Bottom line don't be friggin idiots.
I know you mean well, but the majority of sports fans know how this works.

Are you disputing what I posted or just being a moron? Or both?

Oh, I get it. Anyone who doesn't agree with your opinion is a moron.

Katpappy · « **Reply #35 on:** January 09, 2014, 11:18:02 PM »

This guy gets it.

'Our flawed voting process needs remodeling in a new media world. ...' — Dan Le Batard

michigancat · « **Reply #36 on:** January 09, 2014, 11:19:09 PM »

I agree that is flawed, but i disagree that it will eff over the "have nots" or whatever you losers want to label us.

Katpappy · « **Reply #37 on:** January 09, 2014, 11:41:00 PM »

Quote from: michigancat on January 09, 2014, 11:19:09 PM

I agree that is flawed, but i disagree that it will eff over the "have nots" or whatever you losers want to label us.

Weren't you upset that the computers were out of it? Do you really think they will put a team in that doesn't have a national following, unless they are forced too. Who went to BCS bowls this year.

michigancat · « **Reply #38 on:** January 09, 2014, 11:44:07 PM »

Quote from: Katdaddy on January 09, 2014, 11:41:00 PM

Quote from: michigancat on January 09, 2014, 11:19:09 PM
I agree that is flawed, but i disagree that it will eff over the "have nots" or whatever you losers want to label us.
Weren't you upset that the computers were out of it? Do you really think they will put a team in that doesn't have a national following, unless they are forced too. Who went to BCS bowls this year.

The playoff isn't the BCS.

Katpappy · « **Reply #39 on:** January 09, 2014, 11:50:50 PM »

Quote from: michigancat on January 09, 2014, 11:44:07 PM

Quote from: Katdaddy on January 09, 2014, 11:41:00 PM
Quote from: michigancat on January 09, 2014, 11:19:09 PM
I agree that is flawed, but i disagree that it will eff over the "have nots" or whatever you losers want to label us.
Weren't you upset that the computers were out of it? Do you really think they will put a team in that doesn't have a national following, unless they are forced too. Who went to BCS bowls this year.

The playoff isn't the BCS.

How many smalls schools played in the MNC during the BCS period?

michigancat · « **Reply #40 on:** January 09, 2014, 11:57:55 PM »

Quote from: Katdaddy on January 09, 2014, 11:50:50 PM

Quote from: michigancat on January 09, 2014, 11:44:07 PM
Quote from: Katdaddy on January 09, 2014, 11:41:00 PM
Quote from: michigancat on January 09, 2014, 11:19:09 PM
I agree that is flawed, but i disagree that it will eff over the "have nots" or whatever you losers want to label us.
Weren't you upset that the computers were out of it? Do you really think they will put a team in that doesn't have a national following, unless they are forced too. Who went to BCS bowls this year.

The playoff isn't the BCS.
How many smalls schools played in the MNC during the BCS period?

4 teams vs. 2

Katpappy · « **Reply #41 on:** January 09, 2014, 11:59:05 PM »

Quote from: michigancat on January 09, 2014, 11:57:55 PM

Quote from: Katdaddy on January 09, 2014, 11:50:50 PM
Quote from: michigancat on January 09, 2014, 11:44:07 PM
Quote from: Katdaddy on January 09, 2014, 11:41:00 PM
Quote from: michigancat on January 09, 2014, 11:19:09 PM
I agree that is flawed, but i disagree that it will eff over the "have nots" or whatever you losers want to label us.
Weren't you upset that the computers were out of it? Do you really think they will put a team in that doesn't have a national following, unless they are forced too. Who went to BCS bowls this year.

The playoff isn't the BCS.
How many smalls schools played in the MNC during the BCS period?

4 teams vs. 2

It will be four big schools though.

michigancat · « **Reply #42 on:** January 10, 2014, 12:04:14 AM »

Katdaddy, what the eff is a big school. Did you not see my goddam post about who would have been in the last four years.

Katpappy · « **Reply #43 on:** January 10, 2014, 12:21:12 AM »

Quote from: michigancat on January 10, 2014, 12:04:14 AM

Katdaddy, what the eff is a big school. Did you not see my goddam post about who would have been in the last four years.

OK, we're not getting anywhere with our opinions. How about we make a bet. If a small school gets in the playoff, I'll post a minimum of one post per day for one month telling anyone who will listen how good you smell. If you should lose this bet, you will do likewise. What do you say to this?

Bookcat · « **Reply #44 on:** January 10, 2014, 04:10:07 AM »

Quote

Michigan State or Baylor would have been in this year.

Michigan State maybe, but baylor was ranked 6th after they got drilled by Ostate.

Doubt they're Top 4 in the playoff pecking order....but i'm not sure what system is being used to find the Top 4 in the new "playoff" system.

Its like hoops now,, if you're gonna lose...do it early and the shot at the NC is still a possibility even in if you lose a game. Basically, the "alabama rule" only applied to a great number of college football teams.

CHONGS · « **Reply #45 on:** January 10, 2014, 07:47:04 AM »

The four that would have been in, this year were (likely)

Alabama
Auburn
Florida State
Michigan State

Next year it will be (almost solely due to how the schedules work out and the likely initial rankings next year)
SEC Winner
next highest ranked SEC team
Florida State
*

IMHO there is really only one open slot. In order the likely candidates are: Winner of the Big 10, Pac 12, Big 12, Undefeated non BCS school which has been successfull lately.

michigancat · « **Reply #46 on:** January 10, 2014, 10:24:12 AM »

Quote from: Chingon on January 10, 2014, 07:47:04 AM

The four that would have been in, this year were (likely)

Alabama
Auburn
Florida State
Michigan State

Next year it will be (almost solely due to how the schedules work out and the likely initial rankings next year)

This is my biggest problem with letting humans choose the teams. Whether they know it or not, each team's ranking is primed based on a completely made up and worthless preseason poll. The only way to get in without winning the conference is by getting a high preseason ranking - this applies to everyone outside the SEC in my opinion.

scottwildcat · « **Reply #47 on:** January 10, 2014, 10:36:59 AM »

Quote from: p1k3 on January 09, 2014, 10:08:48 PM

we have to go 12-0 to get in. Other "name" schools can afford to lose a game or two.

Been saying this for awhile in a couple threads.

Katpappy · « **Reply #48 on:** January 10, 2014, 02:38:26 PM »

Quote from: michigancat on January 10, 2014, 10:24:12 AM

Quote from: Chingon on January 10, 2014, 07:47:04 AM
The four that would have been in, this year were (likely)

Alabama
Auburn
Florida State
Michigan State

Next year it will be (almost solely due to how the schedules work out and the likely initial rankings next year)

This is my biggest problem with letting humans choose the teams. Whether they know it or not, each team's ranking is primed based on a completely made up and worthless preseason poll. The only way to get in without winning the conference is by getting a high preseason ranking - this applies to everyone outside the SEC in my opinion.

Then you agree.

michigancat · « **Reply #49 on:** January 10, 2014, 02:40:27 PM »

Quote from: Katdaddy on January 10, 2014, 02:38:26 PM

Quote from: michigancat on January 10, 2014, 10:24:12 AM
Quote from: Chingon on January 10, 2014, 07:47:04 AM
The four that would have been in, this year were (likely)

Alabama
Auburn
Florida State
Michigan State

Next year it will be (almost solely due to how the schedules work out and the likely initial rankings next year)

This is my biggest problem with letting humans choose the teams. Whether they know it or not, each team's ranking is primed based on a completely made up and worthless preseason poll. The only way to get in without winning the conference is by getting a high preseason ranking - this applies to everyone outside the SEC in my opinion.
Then you agree.

completely different from what you are saying