TCU should get a real national championship game vs. Auburn/Oregon

[BrntO4Life]

Hell, let's get rid of anything besides conference games. Then have my 64-team playoff after that.

Solid non-conference games have nearly gone the way of the dodo anyways. Teams make agreements for ten years down the line, only to cancel them when it doesn't look like they can compete or are simply afraid of the possibility of a loss.

[FirstTimer]

Hell, let's get rid of anything besides conference games. Then have my 64-team playoff after that.

Solid non-conference games have nearly gone the way of the dodo anyways. Teams make agreements for ten years down the line, only to cancel them when it doesn't look like they can compete or are simply afraid of the possibility of a loss.

So how long until Texas cancels Notre Dame?

[Senser81]

You are missing my point entirely. I want a playoff, but I don't want the playoff at the cost of hurting the season. You say you want meaningful games, but you have to remember, it isn't just about meaningful wins, it is also about meaningful losses.

Once you start taking in too many teams (ie. 8+), you start to take away the meaning of past games. All of a sudden, the Stanford/Oregon game doesn't matter because both teams got in regardless of the fact that Stanford couldn't even win it's conference. Now, the Wisconsin/Ohio State game is meaningless because both teams got in anyways. Now, the fact that Arkansas lost 2 games and couldn't even win their division doesn't matter, they still get in.

That isn't making games meaningful, that is making losses meaningless, which means the game was pointless.

Again, I'm all for a playoff, but a playoff that makes big time games into meaningless seeding exhibitions isn't a good format.

This makes no sense in context of the current system. You are bitching that a 1-loss Stanford team would "improperly" benefit from an 8-team playoff, while I just had to sit through a BCS bowl game featuring a 4-loss UConn team against a 2-loss Oklahoma team.

[Hasselbeck]

I don't hate Deviant's system, but I would be hard pressed if anyone asked me to explain how Boise, Oklahoma, and Ohio State deserved a shot at the title this year?

* I don't accept "Well, if they win it, then they deserved it" because the same could be said for having a 64 team playoff and the 64th ranked team winning it all.

Jesus Christ.. I wanted to avoid this pointless argument, because Jeremy Hight is clueless as usual..

But really, are you fucking kidding me?

If the 64th ranked team (and I would never advocate a 64 team playoff for a 12 or 13 game college season to begin with) .. ran the table and beat tough opponent after tough opponent.. YES! THEY DESERVE THE FUCKING TITLE!

If Butler beat Duke last year in CBB, you mean to tell me they didn't deserve it? That's retarded. I hate to break it to you, but year after year, playoffs sometimes feature teams that get hot when it matters most.. and, while their whole body of work may not be as nice as other teams, they still win the final postseason tournament. That's why we have playoffs and not arbitrary biased rankings determining who could be the best team.

But HOW.. HOW can you seriously say with a straight face - in an EIGHT team playoff.. if the last school that got in ran the table.. that they didn't deserve it?

Out of laziness, I'm not even going to tinker these rankings.. I'm just listing the Top 8 schools based on BCS ranking.. and I'd love to see you say 8 seed Arkansas wouldn't deserve a championship if they beat the following.

(8)Arkansas def. (1) Auburn
(8)Arkansas def. (4) Stanford/(5)Wisconsin
(8)Arkansas def. (2) Oregon/(3)TCU

Yeah.. TERRIBLE champion right there. Arkansas lost 2 regular season games but beat 3 of the Top 5 teams in the country to close out the year. Can't have that team hoist the trophy. No sir. Why? Cause they lost by 4 to Alabama and previously to #1 Auburn. BRUTAL CHAMPION!!

Give me a f'n break.

[JeremyHight]

Again, Hasselback is advocating a large playoff because if a bad team is able to actually win it, they would have deserved being there. The problem is that in allowing anyone and everyone into a tournament, you are making the regular season pointless and uneventful. Who cares who wins rivalry games, you both get in the playoffs. Who cares who wins a conference, you get in the playoffs. Didn't beat a single ranked team all year, you get in the playoffs.

Can someone PLEASE explain to me what Ohio State has done to deserve a shot at the title? They haven't beaten a single ranked team all year and lost to the only ranked team they did play.

Can someone PLEASE explain to me what Stanford has done to deserve a shot at the title? They haven't beaten a ranked team all year and lost to the only ranked team they did play. Not only that, but they didn't even win their conference.

When you start saying teams don't need to beat a single ranked team and still get a shot at the national championship, you are saying the season is pointless. You might as well make it 120 team double elimination playoff and just have teams play it out that way.

If you want to have a real championship based around regular season and postseason performance, you make it a 4 conference champion team playoff. Everything else just shits on the regular season worse than the BCS.

[NAHSTE]

Jesus Christ.. I wanted to avoid this pointless argument, because Jeremy Hight is clueless as usual..

But really, are you fucking kidding me?

If the 64th ranked team (and I would never advocate a 64 team playoff for a 12 or 13 game college season to begin with) .. ran the table and beat tough opponent after tough opponent.. YES! THEY DESERVE THE FUCKING TITLE!

If Butler beat Duke last year in CBB, you mean to tell me they didn't deserve it? That's retarded. I hate to break it to you, but year after year, playoffs sometimes feature teams that get hot when it matters most.. and, while their whole body of work may not be as nice as other teams, they still win the final postseason tournament. That's why we have playoffs and not arbitrary biased rankings determining who could be the best team.

But HOW.. HOW can you seriously say with a straight face - in an EIGHT team playoff.. if the last school that got in ran the table.. that they didn't deserve it?

Out of laziness, I'm not even going to tinker these rankings.. I'm just listing the Top 8 schools based on BCS ranking.. and I'd love to see you say 8 seed Arkansas wouldn't deserve a championship if they beat the following.

(8)Arkansas def. (1) Auburn
(8)Arkansas def. (4) Stanford/(5)Wisconsin
(8)Arkansas def. (2) Oregon/(3)TCU

Yeah.. TERRIBLE champion right there. Arkansas lost 2 regular season games but beat 3 of the Top 5 teams in the country to close out the year. Can't have that team hoist the trophy. No sir. Why? Cause they lost by 4 to Alabama and previously to #1 Auburn. BRUTAL CHAMPION!!

Give me a f'n break.

Not to mention Arkansas already beating Alabama (then #1) and LSU (then #5) earlier in the year. So in order for Arky to win the title, it'd take five wins over top five teams, including two ranked #1 ... THOSE IMPOSTERS!!!!!

[Senser81]

Can someone PLEASE explain to me what Stanford has done to deserve a shot at the title? They haven't beaten a ranked team all year and lost to the only ranked team they did play. Not only that, but they didn't even win their conference.

Stanford DIDN'T beat Arizona this year? That's odd, because I thought their only loss was to Oregon.

Stanford beat basically the same teams that Oregon beat. Stanford's big non-conference win was over ND, Oregon's was over the Vols. So, using your logic, if Stanford is a paper champion, then Oregon hasn't beaten anyone either. And they are fast-tracked to the Title game.

What a meaningful regular season.

[JeremyHight]

Stanford DIDN'T beat Arizona this year? That's odd, because I thought their only loss was to Oregon.

Stanford beat basically the same teams that Oregon beat. Stanford's big non-conference win was over ND, Oregon's was over the Vols. So, using your logic, if Stanford is a paper champion, then Oregon hasn't beaten anyone either. And they are fast-tracked to the Title game.

Stanford did beat Arizona... who in all the votes tabulated for the AP and Coaches polls received a grand total of 1 point... meaning they aren't ranked. If you want to base it off old rankings, I guess Texas and Florida still count as top 5 teams, right? Final rankings show how good a team really is, not ones based on pre-season polls.

As for Oregon, I think they will be stomped when they face Auburn, so if you want to call them paper champions, sure. They really haven't done a lot to impress me. As a fan of Ohio State, I know that if we could beat Oregon last year with ease, Auburn should be able to kill them.

[Hasselbeck]

As a fan of Ohio State, I know that if we could beat Oregon last year with ease, Auburn should be able to kill them.

:club:

In that case Boise State would beat TCU again, and TCU just finished a 13-0 season capped off by beating a Wisconsin team that you'd have in your own +1 format.

But I guess Boise State wouldn't deserve a title because they lost to a very good Nevada team because their kicker had a meltdown.

[FirstTimer]

:club:

In that case Boise State would beat TCU again, and TCU just finished a 13-0 season capped off by beating a Wisconsin team that you'd have in your own +1 format.

But I guess Boise State wouldn't deserve a title because they lost to a very good Nevada team because their kicker had a meltdown.

Notre Dame beat Nevada 35-0 last year...who beat Boise St this year. Why is Notre Dame not in this thing?

[FirstTimer]

The problem is that in allowing anyone and everyone into a tournament,.

That's not what he's doing at all. Hass, if advocating an 8 team playoff is "allowing" aprox a whopping .06% of the teams into the tourny.

Again, all this subjective BS about who should be in there at all is why you should just take Conf Champions.

[Hasselbeck]

Notre Dame beat Nevada 35-0 last year...who beat Boise St this year. Why is Notre Dame not in this thing?

Notre Dame lost to Navy last year. So clearly Navy would beat both Nevada and Boise State. Then they'd probably win the 256 team super tournament that JeremyHight fears will happen if we, god forbid, went to a freakin 8 team playoff and let some shit ass 10-2 SEC team play.

[Senser81]

Notre Dame lost to Navy last year. So clearly Navy would beat both Nevada and Boise State. Then they'd probably win the 256 team super tournament that JeremyHight fears will happen if we, god forbid, went to a freakin 8 team playoff and let some shit ass 10-2 SEC team play.

Or some 11-1 PAC-10 team that beat ranked teams during the year (USC, Arizona), will beat a ranked team at the end of the year (Virginia Tech)...but didn't beat ranked teams at the end of the year during the year.

[FirstTimer]

I'll never understand how JHight thinks that allowing less teams into the tournament would produce less meaningful games.

If you went to Autobids for every conference winner and a couple wild card spots you'd have every team battling to win their conference to get into the tourny PLUS teams playing for at large spots. I hate at larges but if they are going to do it but the amount of truly meaningful games coming down the stretch would be insane.

For everything from seeding, to polling, to at larges, to conference champs etc. This year you really only had 6 teams playing meaningful games over the last 2-3 weeks of the season as there would be no real way for any team outside of the Top 5 or 6 to jump up into the NC picture.

[Warner2BruceTD]

If baffling to me that jeremy goes on and on about a playoff making the reg season "pointless and uneventful" , when year after year we end up with unbeaten teams at the end of the season with nothing to show for it. Talk about pointless and uneventful games, TCU was playing for nothing all year.

An 8 team playoff may dilute the meaning of a few games, but it also enhances the meaning of many, many others, clearly making the regular season far more important and full of far more meaningful games than we have now. Who wouldn't take that trade, from a fans perspective?

And I'll even go a step further and play along with jeremy's idea that the regualr season would be reduced to shit. Even if that was the case, who gives a shit? I'll trade that off for a playoff where the best teams play each other.

And this hypocritical notion that cfb is all about rivalries and tradition blah blah blah. If that's the case, shouldn't it not matter what's at stake when OSU plays Michigan? Its all about the rivalry, right? What, the game won't sell out anymore with a playoff in place?

The season wouldn't lose a single bit of intensity, it would gain intensity, because you wouldn't have 113 teams playing for absolutely nothing by game 9.