[quote]csulli wrote:
If there is a national championship without an SEC team in it then football is broken. I would not even entertain the idea of watching such a farce.[/quote]
Really? Cause the SEC have won every year since the beginning of the BCS?[/quote]
Not because of history, because of the quality of both Auburn and Alabama. The goal should be for the two best teams to compete against each other in the national championship. Hypothetically if you’ve got top two or three teams in the nation in one conference, they could easily scar each others’ records enough to keep them out of the running in favor of a couple teams from a different conference who are undefeated against a bunch of bullshit kindergarten teams that they steamrolled.[/quote]
I agree I was just being a shit.
Auburn has that horseshoe up their ass right now, but I still think Bama and FSU are the best in the land.
[quote]csulli wrote:
If there is a national championship without an SEC team in it then football is broken. I would not even entertain the idea of watching such a farce.[/quote]
Really? Cause the SEC have won every year since the beginning of the BCS?[/quote]
Not because of history, because of the quality of both Auburn and Alabama. The goal should be for the two best teams to compete against each other in the national championship. Hypothetically if you’ve got top two or three teams in the nation in one conference, they could easily scar each others’ records enough to keep them out of the running in favor of a couple teams from a different conference who are undefeated against a bunch of bullshit kindergarten teams that they steamrolled.[/quote]
I agree I was just being a shit.
Auburn has that horseshoe up their ass right now, but I still think Bama and FSU are the best in the land.[/quote]
Yea definitely. I put Auburn and Missouri both above Ohio State as well. Ohio State has played basically no one… At least FSU had to beat Clemson, but that was about it for them.
[quote]csulli wrote:
If there is a national championship without an SEC team in it then football is broken. I would not even entertain the idea of watching such a farce.[/quote]
Really? Cause the SEC have won every year since the beginning of the BCS?[/quote]
Not because of history, because of the quality of both Auburn and Alabama. The goal should be for the two best teams to compete against each other in the national championship. Hypothetically if you’ve got top two or three teams in the nation in one conference, they could easily scar each others’ records enough to keep them out of the running in favor of a couple teams from a different conference who are undefeated against a bunch of bullshit kindergarten teams that they steamrolled.[/quote]
I agree I was just being a shit.
Auburn has that horseshoe up their ass right now, but I still think Bama and FSU are the best in the land.[/quote]
At least FSU had to beat Clemson, but that was about it for them.[/quote]
Oh shit, Push is going to have something to say about that.
[quote]csulli wrote:
If there is a national championship without an SEC team in it then football is broken. I would not even entertain the idea of watching such a farce.[/quote]
Really? Cause the SEC have won every year since the beginning of the BCS?[/quote]
Not because of history, because of the quality of both Auburn and Alabama. The goal should be for the two best teams to compete against each other in the national championship. Hypothetically if you’ve got top two or three teams in the nation in one conference, they could easily scar each others’ records enough to keep them out of the running in favor of a couple teams from a different conference who are undefeated against a bunch of bullshit kindergarten teams that they steamrolled.[/quote]
I agree I was just being a shit.
Auburn has that horseshoe up their ass right now, but I still think Bama and FSU are the best in the land.[/quote]
Yeah, Auburn can thank God that games are 60 minutes long and not 59:30 They would have 3 more losses on their record with one of those against a fairly bad Miss St. team. But hey, things just fell right for them this year.
[quote]red04 wrote:
So many bitter people.[/quote]
Do you honestly think that Ohio State is the second best team in the country? Or that if there was a playoff with the top 4 or 8 that they would make it to that final two?
Edit: Mostly curious, not going to argue with whatever you say.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
USC has hired Steve Sarkisian as head coach. [/quote]
What is your opinion Max?[/quote]
Orgeron also submitted his resignation as well.
Kinda hard to say, he has already been in the USC system and is a QB coach at heart. I think this is to hopefully recruit a prize QB to USC, because Cody Kessler is nothing overly special.
We have a stable of running backs and good receivers, but we do have a QB problem at the moment.
[quote]red04 wrote:
So many bitter people.[/quote]
Do you honestly think that Ohio State is the second best team in the country? Or that if there was a playoff with the top 4 or 8 that they would make it to that final two?
Edit: Mostly curious, not going to argue with whatever you say.[/quote]
My bitter comment is about ‘recent history’(8 years ago) having any bearing on this season. OSU won their last BCS game(2011) against Arkansas.
I’ll make another post later with an actual response to your question though.
Even if there was a four team play off this year there would be drama. For example, Auburn beats Mizzou. Would the play off then be FSU (assuming the win the ACC), OSU (assuming they win the Big 10), Auburn (already assumed they won the SEC), and Alabama. If that is the case why would Alabama deserve to get a spot when they did not even play in their conference championship. There will always be someone who is pissed off.
I will at least agree that it is better than the current system.
[quote]GrizzlyBerg wrote:
Even if there was a four team play off this year there would be drama. For example, Auburn beats Mizzou. Would the play off then be FSU (assuming the win the ACC), OSU (assuming they win the Big 10), Auburn (already assumed they won the SEC), and Alabama. If that is the case why would Alabama deserve to get a spot when they did not even play in their conference championship. There will always be someone who is pissed off.
I will at least agree that it is better than the current system. [/quote]
I would really like to see a 16 or 24 (top 8 get byes) team playoff. Then some of these smaller schools like NIU this year, will get their shot at playing Cinderella. And if you wanted to expand it to 32 or 24 then just use most of the existing bowls as host sights (or do away with most of them all together until the final few and just go home and away) and make post season college football actually mean something instead of allowing a 6-6 Mississippi State or a 7-5 Arkansas State going to a “post-season” game.
[quote]GrizzlyBerg wrote:
Even if there was a four team play off this year there would be drama. For example, Auburn beats Mizzou. Would the play off then be FSU (assuming the win the ACC), OSU (assuming they win the Big 10), Auburn (already assumed they won the SEC), and Alabama. If that is the case why would Alabama deserve to get a spot when they did not even play in their conference championship. There will always be someone who is pissed off.
I will at least agree that it is better than the current system. [/quote]
There’s drama even when there is 64(err, 68 now?) teams. There isn’t really a way to remove drama from college sports because the number of teams adds incredible variation and subjectivity.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Yes, he is. They also beat Miami and Maryland who both ended up unranked. So that’s wins against #13 (Clemson) and two podunk teams as well has road wins against two more roody-poot teams.
[/quote]
fixed
[quote]GrizzlyBerg wrote:
Even if there was a four team play off this year there would be drama. For example, Auburn beats Mizzou. Would the play off then be FSU (assuming the win the ACC), OSU (assuming they win the Big 10), Auburn (already assumed they won the SEC), and Alabama. If that is the case why would Alabama deserve to get a spot when they did not even play in their conference championship. There will always be someone who is pissed off.
I will at least agree that it is better than the current system. [/quote]
There’s drama even when there is 64(err, 68 now?) teams. There isn’t really a way to remove drama from college sports because the number of teams adds incredible variation and subjectivity.[/quote]
I agree there will always be drama. I think it has also been elevated this year because the majority does not think OSU deserves to be in the championship.
I was thinking of something along the lines of what jbpick86 said. Make it an 8 team play off. More games= more money plus you are certain to include at least 5 or 6 teams who actually deserve to be there (and maybe lost one or two good games all season) and 1 or 2 teams who got lucky and barely won against shitty teams (OSU). Having one play off game to get into the championship does not eliminate enough luck from the equation IMO.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Yes, he is. They also beat Miami and Maryland who both ended up unranked. So that’s wins against #13 (Clemson) and two podunk teams as well has road wins against two more roody-poot teams.
[/quote]
fixed ;)[/quote]
If we’re doing it that way, who has Missouri beat? #22 and #25, and one of those two had literally every starting skill position player injured(and many more injuries, but those were the impact ones). They have a common opponent with OSU, who OSU beat more convincingly in a conference game(generally considered harder games).
FSU actually does have a pretty weak schedule, but they have STOMPED everyone, which (rightfully) gives them a pass. They’ve beaten all the mediocre teams they’ve faced like an elite team should, making it look completely effortless in every single game.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Yes, he is. They also beat Miami and Maryland who both ended up unranked. So that’s wins against #13 (Clemson) and two podunk teams as well has road wins against two more roody-poot teams.
[/quote]
fixed ;)[/quote]
If we’re doing it that way, who has Missouri beat? #22 and #25, and one of those two had literally every starting skill position player injured(and many more injuries, but those were the impact ones). They have a common opponent with OSU, who OSU beat more convincingly in a conference game(generally considered harder games).
FSU actually does have a pretty weak schedule, but they have STOMPED everyone, which (rightfully) gives them a pass. They’ve beaten all the mediocre teams they’ve faced like an elite team should, making it look completely effortless in every single game.[/quote]
Im not an artist Red
