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

[Senser81]

Lets take last year for instance, which grouping of teams would you rather have in a 4-team playoff:

top 4 conf champs:
#1 LSU, #2 Alabama, #3 Okie State, #4 Stanford

or

top 4 overall:
#1 LSU, #3 Okie State, #6 Oregon, #9 Wisconsin

Id definately prefer top 4 overall, i dont want Wisconsin over Alabama in a playoff.

How is Alabama a "conf champ"?

Its not a question of "rather", its a question of which teams are most deserving, IMO. The fact that you don't want Wisconsin over Alabama in a playoff is superfluous...it shouldn't be based on "want".

 

[ZoneBlitz]

How is Alabama a "conf champ"?

Its not a question of "rather", its a question of which teams are most deserving, IMO. The fact that you don't want Wisconsin over Alabama in a playoff is superfluous...it shouldn't be based on "want".

You quoted me before i fixed my post...ok i feel Alabama was more deserving of a playoff spot than Wisconsin, who lost twice to mediocre teams during the regular season.

 

[FirstTimer]

I'd rather see the Top 4 champs. I think it shows the rankings are pretty retarded when Oregon beats Stanford, wins the pac-12 and yet somehow gets passed by them despite having a better record.

 

[ZoneBlitz]

I'd rather see the Top 4 champs. I think it shows the rankings are pretty retarded when Oregon beats Stanford, wins the pac-12 and yet somehow gets passed by them despite having a better record.

Stanford had the better record before the bowl games. After the bowl games, Oregon finished ranked ahead of Stanford.

 

[FirstTimer]

Stanford had the better record before the bowl games. After the bowl games, Oregon finished ranked ahead of Stanford.

Meculpa.

Either way. Oregon beat Stanford head to head. The Ducks other loss was to another really good team so...it's not like some Iowa St scenario snuck in.

Going all rankings is pretty dumb IMO because of the complete subjectivity of the rankings. You need something objective to balance out possible idiotic scenarios like Oregon and Stanford.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

I have no sympathy for a team like Alabama if the scenario was a 'league champion only' format. Win your league, or tough shit. At least that's something tangible to use to choose the teams instead of the racket used now. The 'game of the century' would have actually meant something under that system.

 

[ZoneBlitz]

The 'game of the century' would have actually meant something under that system.

True, but then Wisconsin's losses to Michigan State and Ohio State wouldnt have meant anything (as far as them still making the playoffs).

No matter what playoff format you choose, there will be games during the regular season rendered meaningless. There wont be 4 teams going to the playoffs undefeated.

 

[ralaw]

Thats kind of the point...you can say which conferences are better based on the field of play, not from assumptions. People assumed the SEC was superior to all other conferences last year, so some people were ok with the LSU-Alabama rematch...but its a pretty weak argument because its not like Alabama beat anyone of note outside their conference.

In the end I just want the 4 or 8 best teams in the country to play for a NC. I really don't care which conference they are from, but I also don't like the idea of labeling the top teams in the country based on whether they won their conference alone.

To bring up the Alabama example again, how can they be deserving if they can't even win their own division in their conference?

I really don't care about whether they won their conference championship or not. At the minimum by beating LSU in the NC game Alabama proved that they are at the very least on par with LSU who won the SEC. Winning your conference isn't the end all be all for me. Limiting it to conference champions is just to stringent for me.

 

[FirstTimer]

True, but then Wisconsin's losses to Michigan State and Ohio State wouldnt have meant anything (as far as them still making the playoffs).

No matter what playoff format you choose, there will be games during the regular season rendered meaningless. There wont be 4 teams going to the playoffs undefeated.

This entire post is awful.

Besides stating what is likely blatantly obvious you ignore the fact that the Alabama's loss not only was "meaningless" but also gave them the advantage of getting to skip out on playing in the SEC Championship game against another Top 10 team.

Wisconsin's losses may have been made "meaningless" to you, though I disagree, but they weren't actually given a competitive advantage in getting to the playoffs/championship by losing the game(s).

 

[ZoneBlitz]

Besides stating what is likely blatantly obvious you ignore the fact that the Alabama's loss not only was "meaningless" but also gave them the advantage of getting to skip out on playing in the SEC Championship game against another Top 10 team.

:yawn:

Dont care. LSU coulda lost against UGA and still been in the NC.

Wisconsin's losses may have been made "meaningless" to you, though I disagree, but they weren't actually given a competitive advantage in getting to the playoffs/championship by losing the game(s).

If Wisconsin loses 2 games yet still makes the playoffs can you please explain how those 2 losses are NOT meaningless??

 

[FirstTimer]

:yawn:

Dont care. LSU coulda lost that game and still been in the NC.

Or they may not have been. Which would have made the game meaningful.

Your mind set is flat out idiotic if you think that any time a team makes the playoffs all their previous losses are somehow meaningless and did not factor at all into the selection process.


It's like you can't comprehend the way sports work. We've already been over this, depending on how the playoffs are seeded with home/neutral site games the losses would still carry mean in the playoff due to that fact.

How is this incredibly simple concept beyond you?

If Wisconsin loses 2 games yet still make the playoffs can you please explain how those 2 losses are NOT meaningless??

mg:

See above.

 

[Senser81]

True, but then Wisconsin's losses to Michigan State and Ohio State wouldnt have meant anything (as far as them still making the playoffs).

No matter what playoff format you choose, there will be games during the regular season rendered meaningless. There wont be 4 teams going to the playoffs undefeated.

But Wisconsin still had to overcome those losses and win their conference to get into the playoff...Alabama essentially got a bye.

Starting to get irritated with you again, FYI. Don't know how you aren't understanding this.

 

[ZoneBlitz]

Your mind set is flat out idiotic if you think that any time a team makes the playoffs all their previous losses are somehow meaningless and did not factor at all into the selection process.

It's like you can't comprehend the way sports work. We've already been over this, depending on how the playoffs are seeded with home/neutral site games the losses would still carry mean in the playoff due to that fact.

Whoa. If what you're saying is true, then Alabama could make the playoffs and their loss to LSU WOULDNT have been meaningless.

 

[FirstTimer]

I'm thoroughly convinced ZB doesn't watch sports.

 

[ZoneBlitz]

Starting to get irritated with you again, FYI.

Thanks for the heads-up, dad.

 

[KNUBB]

Whoa. If what you're saying is true, then Alabama could make the playoffs and their loss to LSU WOULDNT have been meaningless.

 

[FirstTimer]

Whoa. If what you're saying is true, then Alabama could make the playoffs and their loss to LSU WOULDNT have been meaningless.

mg:

It also got them a competitive advantage...which no one else's losses got them. Same deal with Stanford(Had they made the playoff over Oregon). Holy shit. How are you STILL not getting this?

 

[Senser81]

In the end I just want the 4 or 8 best teams in the country to play for a NC. I really don't care which conference they are from, but I also don't like the idea of labeling the top teams in the country based on whether they won their conference alone.

I would rather the "top team" label be based on winning one's conference as opposed to the alternative, which is BCS computers. To me, winning one's conference is more objective than the BCS computers.

 

[ZoneBlitz]

mg:

It also got them a competitive advantage...which no one else's losses got them. Same deal with Stanford(Had they made the playoff over Oregon). Holy shit. How are you STILL not getting this?

I am getting it, who says im not?

Im merely debating whether or not Alabama's loss to LSU would have meaning if they were included in a playoff. According to what you just said, it wouldnt be meaningless.

 

[Senser81]

I am getting it, who says im not?

There are currently 174 users online.