I thought this was interesting, hopefully they do change it to a playoff system.
Interesting. Although I don’t see schools being in favor of a playoff system, due to bowl game payouts that teams and conferences receive. This money wouldn’t be guaranteed for every conference then if there was a playoff system, but it will be interesting to follow this and see how it progresses. preciate the article Heracles_rocks.
I’m not much for politics, but I think our government leaders could be doing something a lot better with their time. Not to mention that I’m like the only one in the country who apparently doesn’t want a college football playoff system.
[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
I’m not much for politics, but I think our government leaders could be doing something a lot better with their time. Not to mention that I’m like the only one in the country who apparently doesn’t want a college football playoff system.[/quote]
They probably have some sort of desk jockey looking into it… and omg It would be like christmas all over again if there was a play-off system
I prefer the system the way it is. The football players are STUDENT athletes, and as it is that’s debatable. You can’t demand more playing time, more games from them.
Plus, the issues will still remain. People are pissed off that teams didn’t get to play for the championship? Great, some teams will also be left out of the playoff. Boo-hoo.
At least Barack Obama is focusing on sports instead of how to get the god-awful healthcare bill passed. So we’re safe, for now.
[quote]johnconkle wrote:
I prefer the system the way it is. The football players are STUDENT athletes, and as it is that’s debatable. You can’t demand more playing time, more games from them.
Plus, the issues will still remain. People are pissed off that teams didn’t get to play for the championship? Great, some teams will also be left out of the playoff. Boo-hoo.[/quote]
Uh… what? So their teams should have been better. I bet there’s plenty of teams that are “pissed off” about not getting into the NCAA Basketball tourney. Too fucking bad. At least the BEST teams in the nation are given a chance to compete for the ultimate prize. Wierd how that works? But no, subjectivity and personal opinion (not to mention regional bias) are a totally way more superior way to judge sportz.
Ah, now I see how you’re kind of a simpleton. It’s funny how Obama is all of a sudden the only President to cover more than one issue at a time.
Oh wait, he’s not? Aw shit. And give me a damn break. You really think our President himself is worried about this itself? Don’t be ignorant.
And plus, it’s not like NCAA Football has a large fan-base or brings in much revenue either, so it’s probably not a big deal that it gets attended to.
Oh wait, NVM again.
[quote]johnconkle wrote:
I prefer the system the way it is. The football players are STUDENT athletes, and as it is that’s debatable. You can’t demand more playing time, more games from them.[/quote]
What is wrong with adding 3-5 games a year, they do that already in the ncaa tournament provided that they keep winning. I think if they copied the outline of what they do in the basketball tournament, and extend it 4-6 weeks, we would have some very exciting tournaments.
I think it would be cool to see a lower division school actually get a chance to take on a big school if they make it far enough for the championship. If all else fails, you can shorten the regular season and get rid of some games to make it work.
Another thing, a playoff system is used in every other legitimate sport at nearly every single level. For the vast majority you wouldn’t be adding games, only the winners would earn the right to play more games.
Of course people are going to be pissed that their teams sucked and couldn’t win(notre dame). This would only apply to the bcs thing anyways. It would be simple math, each division would have their champion and they would come to the tournament to compete for the overall championship.
Personally i can see why an undefeated team who doesn’t get the chance would be pissed, it doesn’t make sense currently where you can have a 1-3 loss team being crowned the champ when the undefeated teams don’t get a shot. A playoff system would solve that.
You must be a simpleton, you obviously can’t grasp the concept of multitasking.
anyone for a game of soccer??
[quote]Heracles_rocks wrote:
Personally i can see why an undefeated team who doesn’t get the chance would be pissed, it doesn’t make sense currently where you can have a 1-3 loss team being crowned the champ when the undefeated teams don’t get a shot. A playoff system would solve that.[/quote]
I’m trying to think of a time when a 1-loss team made it in ahead of an undefeated team, and the only one I can think of is 06-07 Boise State not getting in ahead of a 1-loss Florida(the OSU team was 12-0). That Boise team played 0 ranked teams all season, and was ranked 9th or something because of their very weak SoS.
Throwing out shit like “1-3 loss teams being crowned champ when undefeated teams don’t get a shot” looks good on paper but really it’s meaningless because only 1 2-loss team has ever played in the game, and that was the year with only 1 1-loss team.
Really, the actual fuss over the BCS system is not over years like this when the “little guys” that PROBABLY wouldn’t do shit don’t make it in; it’s when there’s like 5 1-loss teams that all have a legit gripe over making it. Or a year like 05 when Auburn goes 13-0 in the SEC and gets bumped anyways.
[quote]red04 wrote:
I’m trying to think of a time when a 1-loss team made it in ahead of an undefeated team, and the only one I can think of is 06-07 Boise State not getting in ahead of a 1-loss Florida(the OSU team was 12-0). That Boise team played 0 ranked teams all season, and was ranked 9th or something because of their very weak SoS.[/quote]
All that strength of schedule crap is complete garbage. Alleged great teams get upset on a yearly basis by opponents with weaker schedules. If you follow basketball, great programs get upset every year in march madness. This pertains to “what” one thinks is the champ, not who “is” the champ. There’s a difference between what is, and what is thought to be.
Really, you need to nitpick the actual numbers? The numbers are irrelevant, and besides that, this year we had 5 undefeated teams if i recall. Only 2 of those teams got to play for the championship, and only two finished undefeated. That leaves 2 undefeated teams, one crowned champ, and the other not.
That’s not right, and the other undefeated team boise state is pretty good and has beaten great teams when it counted in the past. For most years, you don’t have many or any undefeated teams, and that is reason enough that there be a playoff system. Something just doesn’t look right when looking at the final rankings when you have losers ahead of a team that haven’t lost a game.
Think about it, choosing only 2 teams to decide the “champ” due to favoritism is inane . Your last paragraph proves the point that a playoff system is needed.
[quote]SSC wrote:
Oh wait, he’s not? Aw shit. And give me a damn break. You really think our President himself is worried about this itself? Don’t be ignorant.[/quote]
There was a news article cited, that ideally would have been read before calling ignorant a person claiming some personal involvement by Obama.
With regard to objecting to such a claim, while I would agree with a view that Obama is unlikely to be spending substantial time personally on it, the article does state:
“In 2008, Obama said he was going to ‘to throw my weight around a little bit’ to nudge college football toward a playoff system, a point that Hatch stressed when he urged Obama last fall to ask the department to investigate the BCS.”
Also, though this would not have been found in the article, I recall having heard a clip of Obama saying sometime since inauguration – I think a few months ago – that he was “concerned” about the BCS.
So yes, Obama has chosen to involve himself in this. There was no ignorant error there.
[quote]Heracles_rocks wrote:
[quote]red04 wrote:
I’m trying to think of a time when a 1-loss team made it in ahead of an undefeated team, and the only one I can think of is 06-07 Boise State not getting in ahead of a 1-loss Florida(the OSU team was 12-0). That Boise team played 0 ranked teams all season, and was ranked 9th or something because of their very weak SoS.[/quote]
All that strength of schedule crap is complete garbage. Alleged great teams get upset on a yearly basis by opponents with weaker schedules. If you follow basketball, great programs get upset every year in march madness. This pertains to “what” one thinks is the champ, not who “is” the champ. There’s a difference between what is, and what is thought to be.
Really, you need to nitpick the actual numbers? The numbers are irrelevant, and besides that, this year we had 5 undefeated teams if i recall. Only 2 of those teams got to play for the championship, and only two finished undefeated. That leaves 2 undefeated teams, one crowned champ, and the other not.
That’s not right, and the other undefeated team boise state is pretty good and has beaten great teams when it counted in the past. For most years, you don’t have many or any undefeated teams, and that is reason enough that there be a playoff system. Something just doesn’t look right when looking at the final rankings when you have losers ahead of a team that haven’t lost a game.
Think about it, choosing only 2 teams to decide the “champ” due to favoritism is inane . Your last paragraph proves the point that a playoff system is needed. [/quote]
Nowhere in my post did I say I am against a playoff system, I just pointed out that your apparent reasoning(love for the underdog) is hardly the best argument to implement one. Even a playoff system would beget a lot of whining(as seen in march madness) though, with complaints over seeding, or bubble teams(OMG BOISE STATE GOT IN OVER US? WE WERE 11-2 IN THE SEC WTF???). It’s hardly a win/win situation, but the better of the two for sure.