BCS Playoffs..UPDATE 6/5. Pac-12 Commish Larry Scott is fucking awesome

[NAHSTE]

I still disagree.

While I agree that winning a conference is important, in my opinion, Alabama and LSU, CLEARLY, were to two top teams in the nation. It was no contest. They deserved to play in the national title. None of that "well, they had their shot" bullshit. They were the two best teams.

Winning the conference should be a factor, but not a requirement.

All of this is wrong.

 

[St. Francisco]

Double post.

 

[St. Francisco]

I'm honestly torn on this conference champs thing in a four-team model...because I am more than ok with having LSU, Alabama, Oklahoma State, and Stanford in a playoff last year. But I can understand the argument against Alabama and Stanford.

And as a side note to packersfan...in YOU'RE opinion, Alabama was better than Oklahoma State. Not in mine. The Cowboys deserved that national title bid. That being said, I'm ok with both of them making it into a playoff.

 

[packersfan4eva]

You don't think it's unfair that Alabama, who LOST to LSU, got to sit back and watch LSU play another potential knockout game, while they received a free ride in to the national championship game? Had LSU lost, depending how they lost, they might have been bounced from their spot while Alabama, who finished second in their division, lost to LSU, and didn't have to risk their position, was given a spot?

That's just fucked, and that's why this shit is broken and doesn't work. Last season was a farce, and to me, failed to produce a champion.

You think a team that LOST to a team below .500 should get in overa team who beat everybody by 20+ points the last 11 weeks of the season besides the #1 team in the nation? What if the #2 team had been from the Big East? They would have watched as every other team played a conference championship game while they got a free ride to the national championship as well.

How exactly could you CLEARLY state that Alabama and LSU were the two best teams before the championship game when Oklahoma State had an identical record, won their conference, and had just come off of an utter destruction of their arch-rival?

Either way, the only way a playoff can state that they are making the regular season really matter for more teams is to only allow conference champions. Multiple teams from the supposed "Power Conferences" over more qualified undefeated non-BCS schools is what drove the need for these playoffs in the first place.

By that logic, Alabama had just as much right, as they also came off an utter destruction of their arch-rival. Besides, Oklahoma State lost to a team with a losing record, while Alabama lost a game they should have won to the #1 team in the nation and didn't play a single close game the entire year.

I'm not arguing against a playoff. I want to see a playoff, because I do not agree with the BCS either. All I'm saying is that I feel that for potentially the first time, in my opinion, they put the #1 and #2 teams in the National Championship game.

I'm honestly torn on this conference champs thing in a four-team model...because I am more than ok with having LSU, Alabama, Oklahoma State, and Stanford in a playoff last year. But I can understand the argument against Alabama and Stanford.

And as a side note to packersfan...in YOU'RE opinion, Alabama was better than Oklahoma State. Not in mine. The Cowboys deserved that national title bid. That being said, I'm ok with both of them making it into a playoff.

I said in my opinion. No one else shares mine, but after watching both these teams play I thought that Alabama was the better.

Point is, we need a playoff, but I thought Alabama > Oklahoma State, and I felt that it was proved when they smothered LSU.

 

[FirstTimer]

Alabama lost a game they should have won to the #1 team in the nation and didn't play a single close game the entire year.

That's because Alabama's schedule was poop.

I said in my opinion. No one else shares mine, but after watching both these teams play I thought that Alabama was the better.

Point is, we need a playoff, but I thought Alabama > Oklahoma State, and I felt that it was proved when they smothered LSU.

So Alabama beating LSU proved they were better than Oklahoma St?

mg:

Wut?

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

You think a team that LOST to a team below .500 should get in overa team who beat everybody by 20+ points the last 11 weeks of the season besides the #1 team in the nation? What if the #2 team had been from the Big East? They would have watched as every other team played a conference championship game while they got a free ride to the national championship as well.

To the bold, I never said that. I think the BCS is total shit, as as I said, it did not produce a legitimate champion last year in my eyes, because of the circumstances that a second place team in a division qualified for the game. It was a total joke and mockery of the sport, and to me, is the final failure of a flawed system that has failed something like 9 out of 15 times to produce an undisputed champion. It needs to go, and last years travesty was the death blow.

To the second point, if these conferences want to squeeze every dollar and have these bullshit championship games, then tough shit if somebody stumbles in one and it leads to a non championship game league team jumping them. Not a single fuck is given from me if that scenario took place.

By that logic, Alabama had just as much right, as they also came off an utter destruction of their arch-rival. Besides, Oklahoma State lost to a team with a losing record, while Alabama lost a game they should have won to the #1 team in the nation and didn't play a single close game the entire year.

Again, Alabama was a second place team in a division. And they lost to LSU. They had no business getting another crack at LSU again, and to me, beating them meant nothing. All it meant was they were 1-1. Bullshit farce of a champion.

I'm not arguing against a playoff. I want to see a playoff, because I do not agree with the BCS either. All I'm saying is that I feel that for potentially the first time, in my opinion, they put the #1 and #2 teams in the National Championship game.

The BCS got it right many times, last year was not one of them. But the only time they get it right, is when it's obvious and indisputable. That's why the two team BCS system sucks. It never works unless you have two, and only two, unbeaten or 1-loss teams. We need 19 computers to accomplish that?

I said in my opinion. No one else shares mine, but after watching both these teams play I thought that Alabama was the better.

Point is, we need a playoff, but I thought Alabama > Oklahoma State, and I felt that it was proved when they smothered LSU.

But now we will never ever know how Oklahoma St would have fared in that game.

We as fans have also been robbed of dozens of classic playoff games over the years, in favor of a multitude of BCS bowls that people pretend matter.

"The Game of the Century" last year ended up meaning absolutely nothing. Let anybody try to tell you how important the CFB regular season is after last year, when the so-called most important game of the year was a meaningless exhibition teaser for a rematch 3 months later.

 

[packersfan4eva]

To the bold, I never said that. I think the BCS is total shit, as as I said, it did not produce a legitimate champion last year in my eyes, because of the circumstances that a second place team in a division qualified for the game. It was a total joke and mockery of the sport, and to me, is the final failure of a flawed system that has failed something like 9 out of 15 times to produce an undisputed champion. It needs to go, and last years travesty was the death blow.

Very true.

To the second point, if these conferences want to squeeze every dollar and have these bullshit championship games, then tough shit if somebody stumbles in one and it leads to a non championship game league team jumping them. Not a single fuck is given from me if that scenario took place.

I think the only way to make it truly fair is if they did away with divisions. That way, you don't get stuck with two teams (Alabama and LSU) playing in the same division and not playing for the conference championship. If they had done that, this situation wouldn't have been so shitty. If Alabama wins the SEC, they go to the title game. If LSU wins, Alabama goes home with two losses. Everybody wins.

The BCS got it right many times, last year was not one of them. But the only time they get it right, is when it's obvious and indisputable. That's why the two team BCS system sucks. It never works unless you have two, and only two, unbeaten or 1-loss teams. We need 19 computers to accomplish that?

I pretty much agree. I still think Alabama and LSu were clearly the two top teams in the nation, and because we have the shitty BCS they played for the championship. If we had the tournament, I feel that Alabama and LSU would have won and we wouldn't be having this discussion today.

---

That's because Alabama's schedule was poop.

They still beat a bunch of their in-conference opponents from the toughest conference in the nation by 30+ points. That's impressive.

So Alabama beating LSU proved they were better than Oklahoma St?

Everyone thought LSU was the #1 team in the country, and by almost beating them once and smashing them the 2nd time, I felt it proved that Alabama was #1.

 

[FirstTimer]

Very true.



I think the only way to make it truly fair is if they did away with divisions. That way, you don't get stuck with two teams (Alabama and LSU) playing in the same division and not playing for the conference championship. If they had done that, this situation wouldn't have been so shitty. If Alabama wins the SEC, they go to the title game. If LSU wins, Alabama goes home with two losses. Everybody wins.


I pretty much agree. I still think Alabama and LSu were clearly the two top teams in the nation, and because we have the shitty BCS they played for the championship. If we had the tournament, I feel that Alabama and LSU would have won and we wouldn't be having this discussion today.

---



They still beat a bunch of their in-conference opponents from the toughest conference in the nation by 30+ points. That's impressive.


Everyone thought LSU was the #1 team in the country, and by almost beating them once and smashing them the 2nd time, I felt it proved that Alabama was #1.

The SEC was not the best conference in America last year. Even a guy like NAHSTE would admit as much.

Secondly, everyone "thinking" LSU was the best team in the nation then having them lose to Alabama after beating them doesn't conclusively prove anything. It just means that each team is pretty evenly matched. It means nothing relative to an actual on the field tournament.

 

[NAHSTE]

That way, you don't get stuck with two teams (Alabama and LSU) playing in the same division and not playing for the conference championship. If they had done that, this situation wouldn't have been so shitty. If Alabama wins the SEC, they go to the title game. If LSU wins, Alabama goes home with two losses. Everybody wins.

What the shit? That's the exact same scenario. If they are 1-1 at the end of it, you are still rendering the first game meaningless.

They still beat a bunch of their in-conference opponents from the toughest conference in the nation by 30+ points. That's impressive.

A. Last year was a down year as a whole for the conference. Auburn lost a ton of talent, Ole Miss and Tennessee each had the worst season in their history, and Florida was as bad as they have been since the 80s B. Besides Arkansas and LSU, Alabama's conference schedule consisted of the lower half of the league.

Conference records in parentheses

- Vanderbilt (2-6)
- Tennessee (1-7)
- Florida (3-5)
- Miss. State (2-6)
- Ole Miss (0-8)
- Auburn (4-4)

 

[1ke]

Im old school, Conference Championships were what this used to be all about.

 

[ZoneBlitz]

What the shit? That's the exact same scenario. If they are 1-1 at the end of it, you are still rendering the first game meaningless.

So what? If Okie State is included in a playoff, you are rendering their loss to Iowa State meaningless. The regular season is not a single-elimation tourney.

I think the only way to make it truly fair is if they did away with divisions.

Agree.

 

[packersfan4eva]

What the shit? That's the exact same scenario. If they are 1-1 at the end of it, you are still rendering the first game meaningless.

Like Zoneblitz said, the regular season's not a single-elimination tourney. Alabama won when it counted.

A. Last year was a down year as a whole for the conference. Auburn lost a ton of talent, Ole Miss and Tennessee each had the worst season in their history, and Florida was as bad as they have been since the 80s B. Besides Arkansas and LSU, Alabama's conference schedule consisted of the lower half of the league.

Conference records in parentheses

- Vanderbilt (2-6)
- Tennessee (1-7)
- Florida (3-5)
- Miss. State (2-6)
- Ole Miss (0-8)
- Auburn (4-4)

But Alabama beat them all handily, and smoked Arkansas as well. True, Oklahoma State had a slightly tougher schedule, but two of the games they almost lost (and their loss) were to teams in the bottom half of the Big 12. Alabama cruised through all those teams.

 

[FirstTimer]

So what? If Okie State is included in a playoff, you are rendering their loss to Iowa State meaningless.

Umm.no.

When evaluating Okie St no one ignored the loss to Iowa St.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

So what? If Okie State is included in a playoff, you are rendering their loss to Iowa State meaningless. The regular season is not a single-elimation tourney.

Thats funny, because for years the rhetoric has been the exact opposite. 'We MUST preserve the sanctity of the super important, super intense, CFB regualr season! Every game counts! CFB has a playoff....its the regular season!"

It seems to me, the only time regular season losses really matter is when it suits the argument. During the BCS era, we've seen undefeated teams snubbed almost half the years. Good thing those teams survived the grueling regular season tournament!

You know what else a playoff five years ago would have solved? Suoer conference realignment, which is not only hurting football, but has now destroyed tradition in other sports, namely basketball. With a 'champ only' tournament format, nobody would be clamoring to play in stacked leagues.

This is just a terrible time to be a college sports fan. I'd be ok with the old bowl system at this point. Fuck it. We dont crown legit champs anyway, so lets just send Texas to the Cotton Bowl and let the Big 10 have their fruity Rose Bowl traditions back.

 

[packersfan4eva]

Thats funny, because for years the rhetoric has been the exact opposite. 'We MUST preserve the sanctity of the super important, super intense, CFB regualr season! Every game counts! CFB has a playoff....its the regular season!"

It seems to me, the only time regular season losses really matter is when it suits the argument. During the BCS era, we've seen undefeated teams snubbed almost half the years. Good thing those teams survived the grueling regular season tournament!

You know what else a playoff five years ago would have solved? Suoer conference realignment, which is not only hurting football, but has now destroyed tradition in other sports, namely basketball. With a 'champ only' tournament format, nobody would be clamoring to play in stacked leagues.

This is just a terrible time to be a college sports fan. I'd be ok with the old bowl system at this point. Fuck it. We dont crown legit champs anyway, so lets just send Texas to the Cotton Bowl and let the Big 10 have their fruity Rose Bowl traditions back.

Spot on. But then who should have gone to the championship game? Alabama, who lost to #1 LSU? Oklahoma State, who had a tougher schedule but lost to Iowa State? Stanford and Boise also had one loss. Houston too, but no one cares about them.

We need a tournament. And the NCAA needs to step in and, if they are allowed legally, rearrange the conferences to the way they should be arranged.

 

[shag773]

Thats funny, because for years the rhetoric has been the exact opposite. 'We MUST preserve the sanctity of the super important, super intense, CFB regualr season! Every game counts! CFB has a playoff....its the regular season!"

It seems to me, the only time regular season losses really matter is when it suits the argument. During the BCS era, we've seen undefeated teams snubbed almost half the years. Good thing those teams survived the grueling regular season tournament!

You know what else a playoff five years ago would have solved? Suoer conference realignment, which is not only hurting football, but has now destroyed tradition in other sports, namely basketball. With a 'champ only' tournament format, nobody would be clamoring to play in stacked leagues.

This is just a terrible time to be a college sports fan. I'd be ok with the old bowl system at this point. Fuck it. We dont crown legit champs anyway, so lets just send Texas to the Cotton Bowl and let the Big 10 have their fruity Rose Bowl traditions back.

I wish I could thank this post twice...

I don't think anyone necessarily had a problem with Alabama being called the second best team in the country last year. The issues are with the circumstances going into creating the matchup. At the end of the regular season, LSU's prize for going undefeated, winning the regular season title, and being the number 1 team in the county was.....playing in a conference championship game that could possibly knock them out of the NC game. Alabama meanwhile is rewarded for losing to LSU and finishing second IN THEIR CONFERENCE's DIVISION by being given a "bye" while they watch LSU play into the NC game against them.

If they're going to keep the current BCS format, than don't talk out of both sides of your mouth. You either place importance on the regular season and stay true to that, or just admit the regular season is just a 3 month audition to find the best two teams in college football.

For me, if you can't agree on a playoff system I agree with Warner. Play all the bowls on New Years Day and post the NC in the paper the next morning.

 

[Hasselbeck]

I just love how EVERY sport.. high school, college and pro.. aside from FBS, D-1 .. whatever the fuck it's called now.. has a fucking playoff. And these asshats can't even come to an agreement on a basic FOUR team playoff.

 

[ZoneBlitz]

And these asshats can't even come to an agreement on a basic FOUR team playoff.

The disagreement is about if the 4 teams should be conf champs, or 4 best overall. Its not that easy, most fans disagree on that issue as well.

 

[Senser81]

Two things I'm going to add before I begin trolling Zoneblitz (again)...

1) As W2B said, the only years in which the BCS got the title game "right" are the years where the matchup is obvious to everyone. Many times the BCS has put in a Nebraska team into the title game fresh off a 60 point shellacking from Colorado. The BCS is just one more obstacle in the way of simply putting in the two most deserving teams into the title game. The BCS has definitely been a failure, which was kind of to be expected but I think the failure has been even more spectacular than originally thought.

2) packersfan4eva is bringing up how Alabama was one of the two best teams in the nation last year...that may be true, but I have a similar problem with the NCAA basketball tournament selections when idiots like Billy Packer would talk about "best" teams and what he should be talking about is "most deserving" teams. I think the point of all of this is to have the most deserving teams competing for the national championship. It should be putting the alleged 4 best teams into a playoff.

 

[Senser81]

The disagreement is about if the 4 teams should be conf champs, or 4 best overall. Its not that easy, most fans disagree on that issue as well.

But then its really two disagreements...because if you allow it to be something nebulous like "4 best overall", you are just prolonging the argument because how do you determine the 4 best teams BEFORE the playoff? Makes zero sense. It would be like a college basketball conference having a conference tournament, but instead of having all the teams participate and seeding the teams based on conference record, they instead choose to have the 4 "best" teams play in a playoff and give no regard to conference record. So if the conference champ was George Mason, but people thought 5th place VCU was "better", they would take George Mason's spot.