Reply With QuoteymssrOriginally Posted by CarolinaBuff
Yep
ymssr
And you took the outlier. At least a conference championship is an objective criteria. You're saying that the opinions of the grad assistants who fill out the Coach's Poll should carry all the weight.
Only Irish coffee provides in a single glass all four essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar and fat. - Alex Levine
The problem with choosing the 'top four teams' is that it is inherently subjective. The requirement that you must win your conference makes the criteria more objective.
Which is why you simply take the four winners of the major bowls for the playoff.
Nope, go back to the old BCS formula just after they dropped margin of victory.
OK so I have some things I wanted to say... sorry if they are repeats from earlier...... I am all for the plus one system but I think any expansion beyond that fundamentally destroys what I think we all love about the game. I love that every game makes a difference in college football. I would hate to see the day college football teams start resting players the last week cause they know they are in the playoffs. I love that when a 9-0 team plays a 9-0 team in Nov it is essentially a play in to the national title. It would suck knowing no matter what both teams are in. (for example how much excitement would have been lost when bama played LSU in the regular season knowing the winner AND loser would almost be promised a spot in the playoffs 3 weeks later?) The passion of college football is what makes the game great and anything that diminishes that sucks. I understand what some people are trying to say when they say they want a 16 team playoff, but if you want that just go watch the NFL. Enjoy the lack of caring after week 12, enjoy the division championships not meaning a damn thing (in college would be conferences not meaning a damn thing). Also I know people will disagree but what we have now is NOT that bad. Critics argue all the time that screwed everyone... but end of the day it did its job MOST years (not all). Almost every year the best teams played for or won the title. There are some exceptions like NU playing in 2001, or Auburn not playing when they went undefeated. But a plus one eliminates that rare occasion without diluting the meaning of the regular season or the other bowls. I for one just cannot believe the #6,7 or 8 team deserves a shot at the title so why include them in a playoff? Look at this year, the 8th team would be Arkansas. Are you telling me 3rd best in a conference gets to play for a NC when they cannot be 1st or even 2nd in their own conference? I looked back over the past 10 years and I can honestly say I don't think there is a single year when a team outside the top 4 had a LEGIT claim to play in the NC. Because of all these reasons I think a playoff is not only not needed but a terrible idea, and I don't love the BCS but it did its job MOST of the time, adding a plus one is a good idea cause I think it eliminates the rare exception.
Now how to make it feasible..... I am with the people who say make it the top 4 period. I don't want the #2 team (as would be have been the case this year with bama) getting excluded cause #1 was from same conference. If they are #2 I assume they deserve to be there. I think the BCS should add up 2 more bowls. Each major conference has a "home" bowl and if are #1 or #2 you play at your home bowl for the semi and a national championship game in a host city 2 weeks later. I've heard arguments that this gives an advantage to the higher ranked school (for example LSU playing in Sugar Bowl). I say HELL YEAH IT DOES!!! That's the benefit of being undefeated and being #1 or #2!! That's the beauty of college football....... The regular season actually matters. Yes its true whatever bowl picks up the big east or ACC has less of a shot at hosting a semi game... but whatever you still get the chance to have 2 very good team play in your bowl. Last change is get rid of the conference champion guarantee to play in the BCS. UCONN had no business there. Teams like Pitt 2 years ago had no business there. I say conference champs are guaranteed IF they are top 10 maybe top 15. This way we would never again have to see OU vs UCONN as a "marquee" BCS matchup. This would also be more enticing for the BCS bowl getting "stuck with the big east/ACC champ cause they would know if that champ wasn't a top 10 team the bowl committee gets it pick of whoever it wants and it can create some really unique match ups. Sorry for the really long post... Had a lot of thoughts I had and wanted to say so just thought I'd put it all in one long ass one.... hope it all made some sense cause it made sense in my head.
tl; dr
The enter button. Use it.
2002: last time CU finished the season ranked
2005: last winning season
2007: last bowl game
That must be Mtn's dad, or Collinski got reincarnated.
We should have listened to Colorado fans.
So you're putting the championship team selection in the hands of the bowls?
We thought about it for a long time, "Endeavor to persevere." And when we had thought about it long enough, we declared war on the Union. - Lone Watie, The Outlaw Josey Wales
Because all conferences are not created equal.
The proposal I liked the best was it would be the 4 highest ranked conference champions from the Power 6... unless there weren't 4 ranked in the Top 6. If that was the case, the highest ranked non-champion would move into the mix.
I could easily see a scenario where a USC-Oregon or Florida-Alabama conference championship game knocked the loser from an undefeated #1 to a 1-loss #4 ranking. It would suck if that team got excluded from the tourney by a conference champion that wasn't ranked in the Top 6.
Don't agree with all of it (a team should have to win their conference, especially now that we have conference championship games that guarantee that if you play well enough you get a shot at the conference championship) but most of the rest is right on spot.
No matter what system you have there will always be somebody with an argument. I much prefer what makes college football unique, the value of the regular season and every regular season game. Start having 8 team playoffs and you have teams that don't deserve to be called "the best team for that year" in contention.
Sure. The way it would work is you'd have the P12/B10 champ in the Rose Bowl, the B12 champ in the Fiesta, The SEC champ in the Sugar, and the ACC champ in the Orange. That leaves three bowls to pick from the next highest ranked teams. That way, the conference champs all get their shot, as do the really good teams that got beaten early in the year and didn't win their conferences, but were still very highly ranked. It preserves the bowl system and brings back a lot of the stuff we all love about the bowl system (New Year's day games, the Rose Bowl tradition, etc), while allowing outlier teams to stake their legitimate claim to the national championship. It's so perfect, it will never be implemented.
Posting Permissions
