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

[Ira Hayes]

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.

College football is not fair.  Never has been.

[Belvis Noland]

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.

It also works in the MLB and NFL.  The AL Central winner will have a worse record than the 3rd Place AL East team.  crap happens.  The Seahawks went to the Playoffs with a 7-9 record.  crap happens.  It rarely works out that way.  But, it makes divisional play relevant and important. 

[pissclams]

oh la la, this thread has really taken on a life of its own!  oh la la!

[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.

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

What you don't get is that it is as much unfair to LSU as anyone. They shouldn't be forced to have a rematch against a team they beat on their own field.

[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.

Prove it.

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

What you don't get is that it is as much unfair to LSU as anyone. They shouldn't be forced to have a rematch against a team they beat on their own field.

Oh man KITNfury is really bring the  hard today!   

[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.

What you don't get is that it is as much unfair to LSU as anyone. They shouldn't be forced to have a rematch against a team they beat on their own field.

they were clearly the two best teams in the country.  would it have been "unfair to LSU" if they were in opposite divisions and had to play in their SEC championship?  fair has nothing to do with it.  it's getting the best teams to play the best teams, which the system I'm backing does. 

also, lol at  "what you don't get" 

[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.

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

What you don't get is that it is as much unfair to LSU as anyone. They shouldn't be forced to have a rematch against a team they beat on their own field.

they were clearly the two best teams in the country.  would it have been "unfair to LSU" if they were in opposite divisions and had to play in their SEC championship?  fair has nothing to do with it.  it's getting the best teams to play the best teams, which the system I'm backing does. 

also, lol at  "what you don't get" 

They were probably the two best teams.

[Belvis Noland]

it's getting the best teams to play the best teams, which the system I'm backing does. 

so why even have the playoff?  Serious question. 

Why don't we just play the 4 BCS bowl games and then have the committee pick the 2 best teams? 

[steve dave]

it's getting the best teams to play the best teams, which the system I'm backing does. 

so why even have the playoff?  Serious question. 

Why don't we just play the 4 BCS bowl games and then have the committee pick the 2 best teams?

because you can seed the playoff and get what is thought of as the 4 best playing each other.  somewhere in those 4 are the top 2.  a +1 is better than the 4 champions from the 4 big conferences idea though. 

[Fuktard]

As long as experts are going to pick the playoff teams, why not just keep the system we have and let the experts pick the nc?  What's the difference?  Alabama had every chance to beat Lsu in conference, who the eff wants to see them play again?

[Ira Hayes]

As long as experts are going to pick the playoff teams, why not just keep the system we have and let the experts pick the nc?  What's the difference?  Alabama had every chance to beat Lsu in conference, who the eff wants to see them play again?

Some people enjoy seeing the best four teams fight it out.  Even if the best four teams are all from the SEC.

Because who wants to see Oklahoma State get their ass raped?  Nobody.  That's who.

[thebigcatbowski]

it's getting the best teams to play the best teams, which the system I'm backing does. 

so why even have the playoff?  Serious question. 

Why don't we just play the 4 BCS bowl games and then have the committee pick the 2 best teams?

because you can seed the playoff and get what is thought of as the 4 best playing each other.  somewhere in those 4 are the top 2.  a +1 is better than the 4 champions from the 4 big conferences idea though.

If you're saying it's possible to pick the four best teams, then what's the point of having a playoff and letting them prove it on the field? Just pick the "best" team and be done with it. If proving it on the field is important to you, shut the eff up about this stupid ass "system."

[thebigcatbowski]

We weren't better than OU in 03, we just won one game (You could make this argument if we only had one loss).

So, you just made an argument against every elimination playoff format ever. NFL Playoffs. NCAA Tournament. World Cup. Etc.

The conference championship games would basically be quarterfinals unless something like 2003 happened. K-State wouldn't have made it because they weren't in the top 6. The playoffs that year would have been LSU, Oklahoma (at-large), USC, and Michigan.

[OlatheWildcat]

An ITK poster on the WV site (not the dude) says that the ACC is voting tomorrow morning on getting Notre Dame partially into the ACC. If they get accepted, that'll keep Clemson in the ACC, and will probably stop FSU from joining at least this year.

[yoga-like_abana]

this stuff is still going on 

[MadCat]

The cigars thread has become self-aware.  It's only a matter of time before it shakes off the yoke of EMAW and kills all humans.

[KITNfury]

 

The cigars thread has become self-aware.  It's only a matter of time before it shakes off the yoke of EMAW and kills all humans.

 
One of the best posts so far

[Katpappy]

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.

Amen brother, amen. 

[Katpappy]

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.

 

 

But they beat the crap out of OU; doesn't that count for anything. 

[Katpappy]

The cigars thread has become self-aware.  It's only a matter of time before it shakes off the yoke of EMAW and kills all humans.

Yes, this thread is looking more and more like Shaggybevo. 

[DOD Take 2]

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.

It also works in the MLB and NFL.  The AL Central winner will have a worse record than the 3rd Place AL East team.  crap happens.  The Seahawks went to the Playoffs with a 7-9 record.  crap happens.  It rarely works out that way.  But, it makes divisional play relevant and important.

Yes, and those formats suck ass too. The AL Central winner this year has no reason to be in the playoffs. So you just want to use a format because other shitty playoffs are formed that way? Do I think it affects those leagues and the best teams don't get in the playoffs? No. Because they have a larger number making the playoffs. We are talking about only 4 spots.

We weren't better than OU in 03, we just won one game (You could make this argument if we only had one loss).

So, you just made an argument against every elimination playoff format ever. NFL Playoffs. NCAA Tournament. World Cup. Etc.

The conference championship games would basically be quarterfinals unless something like 2003 happened. K-State wouldn't have made it because they weren't in the top 6. The playoffs that year would have been LSU, Oklahoma (at-large), USC, and Michigan.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with a team that is deserving of the playoffs upsetting their playoff opponent. Not sure what you meant by that.

And you're proposing a 3+1 system, which still needs a potentially biased committee to select the top 3 and the +1. Or some type of crappy ratings system. So why limit that selection committee to only select from a small pool of possibly undeserving teams? What if LSU had been upset in the SEC Championship? Then you only have 1 at-large selection, and you would have to move in an under-qualified conference champion.

[Katpappy]

THEY DO READ OUR POSTS!
 
From Shaggybevo:


My source says talks will continue, but there will be NO MOVEMENT this summer. They say this is the flip-side of Texas/ou to Pac-10. Different names, same game.
 
Which leads me to believe ESPN has an interest in propping up the ACC. Remember, basketball is a sport and has value to ESPN. The ACC is the most valuable TV basketball conference with UNC, Duke, and FSU starting to get back to a point where they can win the conference (we should steal their coach, but that's another topic for discussion.)
 
Texas isn't particularly interested in expansion, no matter what you hear. Expansion does little for Texas. Yes, we're going to piss people off with that line of thinking, but everyone is in it for their best interests. Our interest just happens to be larger than most.
 
So, go ahead and drive this thread to 500 pages with posts from Dudes and Cigars and some guy who's connected. When the dust settles, we're going to have 10 for 2012 and 2013, unless some outside influence comes in and changes the game (and I doubt ND is going to just knock on the door and ask for an invite any time soon.)
 
have fun.

[MadCat]

Cigar envy 

[Pete]

I want to extend a hearty "I love you soooo rough ridin' much that I want to get a tattoo of your face on my back, and bath in your blood to merge you to our soul" to the Shaggy posters reading this board.

 

[Stevesie60]

Cigar envy 

This is great.