Smoke your cigars and enjoy the band while you can....

[j-dub]

guys, i just want to watch the ksu cats play football and win lots of games 

[steve dave]

exactly, one conference may be much tougher and deserve 2 teams while another deserves 0.

In a perfect world, I would agree with you. You're being too idealistic if you believe there's an accurate way to find them, year in and year out.

sure, the 3-6 teams may be debateable.  but they will get at least the top 2 every season.  much more often than letting the 4 big conferences send 1 team regardless of their quality.  the big 10 had absolutely no business having a team in a 4 team playoff this year.  that's not really debateable.  and the 4 that got in would have been AL, LSU, OSU and either OR or Stanford.  That would have been the correct mix.

If 1 and 2 are easily achieved year in and year out, j see no reason for a 4 team playoff, do you?

it means that somewhere in the 4 teams picked will be the 2 best teams.  not that they will be chosen as team 1 and 2.  sure, maybe the 5th team got left out and was actually better than the 4th team but who cares.  it's still much more accurate than letting some garbage conference guarantee an entry when they don't have a single legitimate team. 

[steve dave]

guys, i just want to watch the ksu cats play football and win lots of games 

OMG ME TOO JD   

[sonofdaxjones]

Play and win, play and win.

['taterblast]

 

[Fuktard]

exactly, one conference may be much tougher and deserve 2 teams while another deserves 0.

In a perfect world, I would agree with you. You're being too idealistic if you believe there's an accurate way to find them, year in and year out.

sure, the 3-6 teams may be debateable.  but they will get at least the top 2 every season.  much more often than letting the 4 big conferences send 1 team regardless of their quality.  the big 10 had absolutely no business having a team in a 4 team playoff this year.  that's not really debateable.  and the 4 that got in would have been AL, LSU, OSU and either OR or Stanford.  That would have been the correct mix.

If 1 and 2 are easily achieved year in and year out, j see no reason for a 4 team playoff, do you?

it means that somewhere in the 4 teams picked will be the 2 best teams.  not that they will be chosen as team 1 and 2.  sure, maybe the 5th team got left out and was actually better than the 4th team but who cares.  it's still much more accurate than letting some garbage conference guarantee an entry when they don't have a single legitimate team.

Again, why should a team have a shot at the NC if they can't win their conference?  I know SD is omniscient, but just because "someone" says a conference is "garbage" doesn't make it so.  Upsets happen, people are proven wrong, "experts" are not always right...Texas A&M just might be a better team than KSU on a given Saturday in 1998...KSU just might be better than OU on a given Saturday in 2003.  Win your conference and you get a chance to play for the NC..seems pretty rough ridin' simple.

[EMAW4life-JHL]

still think an 8 team playoff where the semi finals are some combination of the Champions, Sugar and Rose Bowl would have been best. With 8 teams you ensure that all the contenders get in, and you make even more money. or have the 4 first round games as all the former BCS bowls and then the rest of the games are highest bidder.

[thebigcatbowski]

Ira's argument is rough ridin' stupid. Steve Dave's argument is rough ridin' stupid.

4 conference champions (no matter what conference) as long as they're in the top 6. If there aren't 4 conference champions in the top 6, then start taking at-larges.

Last year would have been LSU, Alabama, Oklahoma State, and Oregon.

Suck a dick if you think Stanford should have been in the playoff. Because, that's what would have happened if a "panel of experts" picked the top 4 despite the fact that Oregon beat them and won their conference. And, Wisconsin? Just shut the eff up.

[Belvis Noland]

To a point, playoffs are about more than just picking the best 4 teams with accuracy.  Americans like the David and Goliath stories.  We like underdogs.  We like compelling story lines.  This is why the NCAA bball tournament is so compelling.  This is why the Penant Races are so compelling in MLB.  This is why divisional games are so compelling in the NFL.  It keeps it interesting.  The AL Central is still relevant this year even though it doesn't have one of the 4 best teams in the AL.  The AFC West was still relevant the past 2 seasons though it didn't have one of the 4 best teams in the AFC.  If you had a selection committee just picking the 4 best teams in the AL, or AFC, or NCAA, the regular season would be pretty boring for huge swaths of the Country. 

There would be little argument that Alabama and LSU were two of the best teams - if not the 2 best teams - in College Football last season.  Ratings were HORRIBLE.  Now, if the Conference champs from the PAC, big 10, BigXII, SEC, ACC, BigEast and 2 wild cards all played in an 8 team tournament, the entire country would tune in to watch this tournament.

IMO, the only reason a PLus1 model is being forced is because the big 10 and PAC teams don't want to give up their Rose Bowl.  So, now the teams will all play their respective bowl games and then a Selection Committee will cherry pick the 4 best teams.  Well, what if a team like MU wins an SEC East title at 9-3 beats a 12-0 Bama team, and goes on to win the Sugar Bowl.  Bama goes on to win the Orange Bowl at 13-1.  Who's going to the Playoff?  The 13-1 Bama or the 11-3 MU with the head-to-head victory?  Bama.  And the controversy will continue.   

[DOD Take 2]

Ira's argument is rough ridin' stupid. Steve Dave's argument is rough ridin' stupid.

4 conference champions (no matter what conference) as long as they're in the top 6. If there aren't 4 conference champions in the top 6, then start taking at-larges.

Last year would have been LSU, Alabama, Oklahoma State, and Oregon.

Suck a dick if you think Stanford should have been in the playoff. Because, that's what would have happened if a "panel of experts" picked the top 4 despite the fact that Oregon beat them and won their conference. And, Wisconsin? Just shut the eff up.

That certainly is better than Ira's plan, but still leaves room for people to get mumped. If people don't want a potential conference champ to be in, they just have to vote them lower in the poles to keep them out.

Bottom line is just because you won a conference, doesn't mean you were the best team in the conference. We weren't better than OU in 03, we just won one game (You could make this argument if we only had one loss). Should a team with 6 losses like UCLA last year have a shot to be in the playoff? No, but they would have if they could have outplayed Oregon for 1 day. That's rough ridin' Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). Talk about ruining the most exciting regular season in sports. Conference Champions would kill that. Also, how do you determine which 4 conferences were the best? Same idea as a committee to select the 4 participants. There is no way to rate conferences without using polls or a committee to determine which are best.

Everyone keeps saying that you need to take the whole season into account, but just winning one game to claim a conference title doesn't do that. At that point, with the exception of TV deals, why the eff play non-con games? So a bunch of 6-6 teams can become bowl eligible and participate in a game nobody attends/watches? rough ridin' pointless.

[Belvis Noland]

Should a team with 6 losses like UCLA last year have a shot to be in the playoff? No, but they would have if they could have outplayed Oregon for 1 day. That's rough ridin' Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).

Yeah, UCLA should be in.  Let's not forget that the point of the playoff is not to reward the 8 best teams.  The point of the playoff is to find a single Champion.  Everybody else is irrelevant.  So, UCLA gets the 8 seed.  They get matched up against Bama in the first round.  Bama beats them by 49 pts and advances to the second round.

We see this every year when the Kentuckys beat the crap out of the Ionas to advance to the round of 32.  Should Iona have been in the tournament as a conference champ over a 19-11 Texas Tech?  No.  But who gives a crap. 

[steve dave]

IMO, the only reason a PLus1 model is being forced is because the big 10 and PAC teams don't want to give up their Rose Bowl. 

well, under the system I'm advocating they very well could have had their Pac12 champs v. B10 champs rose bowl last season.  weird, you'd think those two loser conferences would want it given that.

[SkinnyBenny]

Part of the appeal is the controversy. To destroy the controversial aspects of college football would be a direct assault on the sport itself.

Usually in this thread Pan's long posts are cool reassurances that soothe my constantly chattering teeth, but this part is no good/pisses me off.

Toward the end of last season during the long, drawn-out talk about who should play in the national championship (i.e. watching the slow and methodical ass-rough ridin' of Oklahoma State over the course of a month and a half on the way to an inevitable and unjust rematch of Bama and LSU), dipshits like Ivan Maisel kept saying this over and over. He'd argue with someone about who should play in the championship game for a half hour, then he'd say something like, "Well, the controversy is part of the fun. Arguing about it is part of the fun."

No, it's part of the fun for him. Because he's from Alabama. Because he's a huge Crimson Tide fan. Because he knows he ultimately will have nothing to worry about. How "fun" do you think the controversy was for Oklahoma State fans in the leadup to their inevitable railroading? How "fun" was it for KSU to get mumped in favor of an inferior VT/Michigan matchup in the Sugar Bowl? Not any rough ridin' fun at all. But no, "controversy is all part of it! Talking and arguing about this is so much fun! It's what makes it great!" No it isn't. It's what makes it infuriating.

Talking and arguing about the controversies is only fun if you're Alabama, or LSU, or some other giant that is assured of getting their way more times than not. It rough ridin' sucks for the rest of us, and it's ruining the game.

[steve dave]

good grief, Alabama or LSU would have prison raped OSU.  Lose to ISU and you get what's coming to you is what my grandfather always said.

[SkinnyBenny]

good grief, Alabama or LSU would have prison raped OSU.  Lose to ISU and you get what's coming to you is what my grandfather always said.

No, denied. OSU was rough ridin' good. But that's not even really what I'm arguing about here, so there's no reason to go down that road. I'm just saying that people who say, "Totally, the controversy is great and what makes it so much fun!" are giant bozos.

[Belvis Noland]

Lose to ISU and you get what's coming to you.

I say this all the time. 

[sonofdaxjones]

Part of the appeal is the controversy. To destroy the controversial aspects of college football would be a direct assault on the sport itself.

Usually in this thread Pan's long posts are cool reassurances that soothe my constantly chattering teeth, but this part is no good/pisses me off.

Toward the end of last season during the long, drawn-out talk about who should play in the national championship (i.e. watching the slow and methodical ass-rough ridin' of Oklahoma State over the course of a month and a half on the way to an inevitable and unjust rematch of Bama and LSU), dipshits like Ivan Maisel kept saying this over and over. He'd argue with someone about who should play in the championship game for a half hour, then he'd say something like, "Well, the controversy is part of the fun. Arguing about it is part of the fun."

No, it's part of the fun for him. Because he's from Alabama. Because he's a huge Crimson Tide fan. Because he knows he ultimately will have nothing to worry about. How "fun" do you think the controversy was for Oklahoma State fans in the leadup to their inevitable railroading? How "fun" was it for KSU to get mumped in favor of an inferior VT/Michigan matchup in the Sugar Bowl? Not any rough ridin' fun at all. But no, "controversy is all part of it! Talking and arguing about this is so much fun! It's what makes it great!" No it isn't. It's what makes it infuriating.

Talking and arguing about the controversies is only fun if you're Alabama, or LSU, or some other giant that is assured of getting their way more times than not. It rough ridin' sucks for the rest of us, and it's ruining the game.

Moral of the Story:  Don't lose to Flood Aggie.

 

 

[DOD Take 2]

Should a team with 6 losses like UCLA last year have a shot to be in the playoff? No, but they would have if they could have outplayed Oregon for 1 day. That's rough ridin' Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).

Yeah, UCLA should be in.  Let's not forget that the point of the playoff is not to reward the 8 best teams.  The point of the playoff is to find a single Champion.  Everybody else is irrelevant.  So, UCLA gets the 8 seed.  They get matched up against Bama in the first round.  Bama beats them by 49 pts and advances to the second round.

We see this every year when the Kentuckys beat the crap out of the Ionas to advance to the round of 32.  Should Iona have been in the tournament as a conference champ over a 19-11 Texas Tech?  No.  But who gives a crap.

That works, when there are 64 teams to play it out. Taking a spot away from the 64th best team in favor of the 120th best team is a whole lot different than taking away a spot from the 8th team in favor of the 60th team. That's taking away a spot from a true potential winner, and giving the #1 a defacto bye game.

[Ira Hayes]

Why does everyone think the ACC, Big East, and Conference USA teams should even get a crack at this?  That is what makes it so hard to come up with a system.  Screw them.  They suck.  Why give them any of the money?  They'll just spend it on basketball.

Add Notre Dame, Clemson, FSU, and Virginia Tech to the 4 power conferences and screw the rest.

Last year's final BCS top 25 contained 7 of the 10 teams that will compete in the BigXII this fall.  There were only 5 teams that aren't in one of the power conferences - 2 of those were Clemson and Va Tech.

[steve dave]

Ira, did you see my idea about KSU automatically getting to play in the NC every year?  Wow.  Mind blown?

[Ira Hayes]

Ira, did you see my idea about KSU automatically getting to play in the NC every year?  Wow.  Mind blown?

I saw it.  Ha. Ha.

We get a free pass into the state championship every year.  Are you one of those Pitt State fans that thinks the Gorillas deserve a shot?

[KITNfury]

good grief, Alabama or LSU would have prison raped OSU.  Lose to ISU and you get what's coming to you is what my grandfather always said.

Prove it.

[Dr Rick Daris]

Ira, did you see my idea about KSU automatically getting to play in the NC every year?  Wow.  Mind blown?

he's getting there. as far as i can tell, he doesn't want the game to always just be between powers. that's not fair. he wants lesser teams to also have a shot. but not all lesser teams, just certain ones. 

[Ira Hayes]

e·lite? ?[ih-leet, ey-leet] 
noun
1.( often used with a plural verb ) the choice or best of anything considered collectively, as of a group or class of persons.
2.( used with a plural verb ) persons of the highest class: Only the elite were there.
3.a group of persons exercising the major share of authority or influence within a larger group: the power elite of a major political party.

 

[steve dave]

good grief, Alabama or LSU would have prison raped OSU.  Lose to ISU and you get what's coming to you is what my grandfather always said.

Prove it.

ISU proved it.  In the plan I'm backing, we could have found out either way.  Not in yours though.