trep14;476715 wrote:Don't like this logic at all. Whats the point of playing the games if you are going to dismiss the results of what happens? When Ohio State lost to Purdue last year, no one said "well Ohio State is actually better than Purdue, so lets just forget that happened and OSU will still be in the national title picture like they belong". Come on, its not like this problem is exclusive to playoff systems. It exists in sports period, and that is why they say you don't play games on paper.

sleeper;476729 wrote:Only ND and SEC fans want to keep this farce we call the BCS. Lord knows that if we had a playoff, the SEC would have ZERO championships because they'd actually have to travel north where they wouldn't win a game against a decent team. And ND? ND's only shot at an NC is to continue playing its powderpuff schedule and get lucky like Alabama did last year with Colt going down to injury.

enigmaax;476733 wrote:The point there is that a playoff doesn't do anything to get closer to a round robin. Someone was saying that since in a playoff you beat a team who beat a team who beat a team, you have beaten all teams de facto. It isn't true. It still just proves that you beat a particular team on a particular day.

Seven teams beat Purdue last year. Does that make all of those teams better than Ohio State...or, does that mean that at least seven teams beat Ohio State de facto? No. So as Sherm was pointing out, if a team gets upset in one game in a playoff, does that mean that all teams who moved on are better or that the champion beat them de facto? No. It means the champion beat a team who beat a team who beat a team - the only difference is that in the playoff the quarterfinal game counted for more than any other game up to that point.

So, a playoff isn't going to prove someone is a champion any more than what the BCS game does now.

enigmaax;476737 wrote:Why would the #1 or #2 team ever have to travel north? It isn't like if there was a playoff they'd be putting the championship game somewhere up north.

What would be more likely to happen is that a second SEC team could earn its way to the title game for an all-SEC championship.

And incidentally, a few SEC schools put together a playoff plan that the Big Ten and Pac 10 refused to even put on the agenda for discussion just a few years ago. Maybe they are afraid that their dominant teams would be exposed way before having the chance to play for a title?

sleeper;476751 wrote:All games would be played in professional stadiums north of the Mason Dixon line. The Championship can be played in the South to balance it out, because there won't be any southern teams left to give them the advantage they have enjoyed since the beginning of college football.

The SEC's playoff plan was probably something like this "Play all the bowl games in the south for a playoff, and allow for our 12th to get an exception, because our worst team would win every other conference in the country". I'm joking, but its probably pretty close to that.

And seriously, not to derail this thread, but there should be higher academic standards in college football. That would eliminate the entire SEC outside of Florida and Vandy.

trep14;476742 wrote:Please. Like I said, transitive logic doesn't work any sports, and a playoff system nor the BCS is going to solve it. And I never said a playoff system was perfect, but the idea that a team can beat multiple particular teams on multiple particular days definitely gives us a better idea of who the best team is than having Alabama and Texas play their regular season and then throwing them in a "national championship game" while Boise, Cincy, and TCU are sitting there unbeaten by anyone. If Alabama can't get up to beat Boise State or whoever in the first round, guess who doesn't deserve to go to the NC game? After all, its all about who "deserves" to go there, right?

jordo212000;476522 wrote:
My last point for this evening (I'll jump in again tomorrow sometime) is that I find it downright laughable that we are holding up change for the Meineke Car Care.com presented by Papa Johns Bowls of the world. That's a joke. Charlotte, NC will be just fine without a game that settles who sucks more. Really I find the whole "save my tradition" rhetoric stuff to be the real knee slapper.

trep14;476763 wrote:My favorite argument about how meaningful bowl games really are: What other sport do you have coaches deserting their teams right before their postseason game? Do you think Brian Kelly would have left Cincy high and dry right before the bowl game if their bowl game actually meant something?

enigmaax;476762 wrote:Again, you were saying the same thing as sherm but you said you didn't agree with his logic.

I do not agree with the thought that if Alabama doesn't win a first round game it means they don't deserve to go to the title game. That is one loss. Your playoff puts more stock in that one loss than any other game that any other team plays all season long. Every other team could have two losses, but you are saying that one loss means a team doesn't deserve it.

Little Danny;476786 wrote:
Maybe all the hypocrisy should end and the elite schools form their own divsion and play amongst themselves.

trep14;476755 wrote:Wow, you sound a little bitter towards the SEC. You realize that teams from your conference don't win 4 national championships in a row solely because of geography, right? The SEC is good.

enigmaax;476787 wrote:trep - So, Alabama losing a first round game to maybe the #8 team in the country means they aren't as good as another team who may have lost two games to crappy teams but who happened to win a game on the same day Bama lost?

And your references to the NFL don't really prove anything because I have already said that I don't agree that their system is the best. You are just falling back on the other-people-do-it-so-it-must-be-right argument. That doesn't work. No system is perfect and a playoff isn't some magic solution that fixes whatever people think is wrong with college football. Fact is, college football does pretty damn well for itself and it isn't really going to get much, if any better with a playoff system. So, there's no reason to change it.

sleeper;476809 wrote:Not bitter. The fact remains the Big Ten still holds more championships in its history(with 38) to the SEC(with 36), and has a 16-15 record against the SEC since the inception of the BCS(let's not even get into the semantics of the better overall record too). I get tired of hearing about how great the SEC is, when in fact they are 2nd best, at best. This doesn't even include adding another national and prestigious program in Nebraska, or the fact that the SEC, pound for pound, is the WORST academic conference in the nation, constantly breaks NCAA rules by over signing players, and the fact that 95% of bowl games(and let's be honest almost 100% of their OOC games) are played in the south(and some even in the same city!).

It sucks, largely because ESPN will play to the masses of ignorant and delusional fans, and those fans are largely in the SEC. If you're an SEC fan, you probably don't have a job with a salary, so you can spend all your time(and welfare dollars) at your local bar watching ESPN spew about how great the SEC is. You're being played like a fiddle, and the best part is, you don't even know it!

trep14;476944 wrote:Right now, the SEC, as a league, is better than the Big 10.

trep14;476777 wrote:Like I said, a playoff system will determine who can beat multiple particular teams (quality teams, might I add) on multiple particular days. That team is going to have to be pretty darn good. Does that not give a better idea of who the best team is than a single game where the best two teams may not even be playing? Its not a one shot deal. No one would hand Boise State the championship if they beat Alabama in the first round. And guess what? If they beat Alabama in the first round of a win or go home playoff, that is a pretty strong endorsement of Alabama not being the best team in college football. We care about what happens in the postseason, right? Big time players make big time plays? For instance in the NFL, no one is going to remember the Colts rolling through the regular season and the only thing keeping them from going undefeated was Jim Caldwell holding the starters out in the last two weeks of the season. Everyone is going to remember the pick Peyton Manning threw in the fourth quarter to seal the Saints win. If you are one of the best teams, you need to show it in the playoffs. Period.

Mooney44Cards;476959 wrote:I bolded the part that would ruin college football. Man how sweet would it be if Tressel rested Pryor for Iowa AND Michigan because he had already locked up a playoff spot! SOOOOO much more exciting!

Mooney44Cards;476959 wrote:I bolded the part that would ruin college football. Man how sweet would it be if Tressel rested Pryor for Iowa AND Michigan because he had already locked up a playoff spot! SOOOOO much more exciting!

sleeper;476953 wrote:This statement is just blatently false. If the SEC is so great, why does it have a LOSING record against the Big Ten since the inception of the BCS?

Having a team from your conference win a title just means you had the best team in your conference, it doesn't boost up the strength of your conference. You have to look at depth, and top to bottom, Big Ten is better than the SEC.

Just the facts!

sleeper;476984 wrote:All that and still a losing record against the Big Ten LOL