Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

Could this football post-season have gone any better?

sackman said:
I agree with this. Yesterday was all kinds of incredible. It might be so good that the 8-team playoff might not happen. The 4-team playoff keeps the regular season very much in play. You can't back in to the final four.

Jens nearly has me convinced that we should keep it at 4 teams. While 8 teams sounds terrific, I think it might dilute the value of the regular season a bit. There was no question that those four teams deserved to be there. It also helps that they kept the bowl games intact and worked them into the fabric of the playoff. That was genius. So next week, either OSU or UO will lose, but they can still say they're Sugar Bowl/Rose Bowl champions. That's great.

I haven't enjoyed a NYD that much in years. Maybe since 1991.
Click to expand...

yes, their still "Rose bowl champs" but will it have meaning? "meaning" is hard to measure, I refer back to "see what their fan boards are saying in two weeks: celebrating conference champ, or crying about playoff loss". However, whichever team loses a week from Monday, comparing the merchandise sales of their 2015 Rose/Sugar Bowl Champion gear to their 2011 sales will be very telling (both teams went to the same bowls 4 years ago and also won then). I have a feeling the system of "keep the bowls and the playoffs" won't look so genius once those numbers are released.
 
Liver said:
i thought the 2 games were really compelling. i'd love to see an expansion to 8. i don't want the big12 to disintegrate. better that they stay a p5 conference and go to enough teams to have a champ game. then, all the p5 champions get an auto bid into the playoffs and you have 3 at large. that would be pretty damned epic.

if the b12 dissolves, we're going to end up in some ****ty pac16 east division with all the texassss ****ers again.
Click to expand...

no at large bids, i love 4 out of 5.
 
sackman said:
Not only did Alabama lose, but it lost for the second year in a row in the SEC's "dedicated" bowl game - the Sugar Bowl. And while I have no great affection for Ohio State, the looks on the faces of the Bama fans during that game were priceless.

Which brings up another point - ESPN's coverage of those games was outstanding. Herbstreit and Fowler for the Rose Bowl were terrific. Was it Nessler and Danielson at the Suger Bowl? They were good, too. Not a hint of SEC homerism that I could detect.

Yesterday, in particular, was perfect in every way. Even the stupid "mayhem" commercials were funny. The only thing that would have made them better is if they really WERE auctioning off that stuff. That would have been hilarious.
Click to expand...


If Allstate reads that post, someone in marketing is going to get fired for not coming up with that idea. Would have made national news for those items to be on ebay right at that time.
 
hokiehead said:
can we honestly not differentiate between "the quality of the games" and "the appropriateness of the system"? I think you and a few others are conflating those points.
Click to expand...


You've asked that question twice. The answer is still "no". The games were so good precisely because of the system that produced them.
 
I don't see how anyone couldn't have enjoyed those games. I have been waiting for that in big boy football for years, a lot of them.
 
sackman said:
You've asked that question twice. The answer is still "no". The games were so good precisely because of the system that produced them.
Click to expand...

Exactly. If there wasn't the extra meaningfulness of these games, they wouldn't have the potential to be as exciting.
 
sackman said:
You've asked that question twice. The answer is still "no". The games were so good precisely because of the system that produced them.
Click to expand...
Honestly, I don't think last night could have gone any better to provide substantial evidence on how well a playoff works.
 
It's weird. I almost didn't watch the OSU/Alabama game. I was thinking there was no way that game could match the enjoyment of the UO/FSU game. I'm glad I didn't change the station. While the UO/FSU game wasn't a cliffhanger the same way the OSU/Bama game was, it was thoroughly enjoyable seeing Winston melt down on the sidelines, get sacked by a puff of wind and fumble the ball, and watching a team that thought itself invincible get completely dominated.
 
sackman said:
You've asked that question twice. The answer is still "no". The games were so good precisely because of the system that produced them.
Click to expand...

there's a few words that fit such a response. I'm not sure whether "naive" or "disingenuous" works better (I have a suspicion). Would the 1991 Orange Bowl have been more exciting if it had been part of a playoff system? Would yesterday's Sugar Bowl have been less exciting if it wasn't? Come on, how can you even make that logic sound right in your own head, much less post it for the world to see?
 
hokiehead said:
there's a few words that fit such a response. I'm not sure whether "naive" or "disingenuous" works better (I have a suspicion). Would the 1991 Orange Bowl have been more exciting if it had been part of a playoff system? Would yesterday's Sugar Bowl have been less exciting if it wasn't? Come on, how can you even make that logic sound right in your own head, much less post it for the world to see?
Click to expand...

Are you serious? Hell Yes the 1991 Orange Bowl would have been more exciting had it been part of a playoff system. Set up a winner-take-all matchup with Georgia Tech the following week? Oh HELL YES. I don't think you're making the argument you think you're making.
 
sackman said:
Are you serious? Hell Yes the 1991 Orange Bowl would have been more exciting had it been part of a playoff system. Set up a winner-take-all matchup with Georgia Tech the following week? Oh HELL YES. I don't think you're making the argument you think you're making.
Click to expand...
Exactly, and we would not have been at the mercy of weasels like Dr. Tom to determine the national champion.
 
sackman said:
Not only did Alabama lose, but it lost for the second year in a row in the SEC's "dedicated" bowl game - the Sugar Bowl. And while I have no great affection for Ohio State, the looks on the faces of the Bama fans during that game were priceless.

Which brings up another point - ESPN's coverage of those games was outstanding. Herbstreit and Fowler for the Rose Bowl were terrific. Was it Nessler and Danielson at the Suger Bowl? They were good, too. Not a hint of SEC homerism that I could detect.

Yesterday, in particular, was perfect in every way. Even the stupid "mayhem" commercials were funny. The only thing that would have made them better is if they really WERE auctioning off that stuff. That would have been hilarious.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Fowlstreet stunk it up. Too much noise. A lot of it just bad noise, but too much regardless.
 
hokiehead said:
I re-read my post and can't conceive how any person could take that away from anything I said. No, I think the playoffs were a terrible idea. i think fans were pushed into really shi*ty systems like the BSA and BCS which screwed things up so bad that fans believed the networks (who stand to make all the money) telling us that we needed a playoffs. Few stopped to question, "why?"
Click to expand...

Waldo would like to give you your membership pin and custom foil hat ASAP.
 
hokiehead said:
there's a few words that fit such a response. I'm not sure whether "naive" or "disingenuous" works better (I have a suspicion). Would the 1991 Orange Bowl have been more exciting if it had been part of a playoff system? Would yesterday's Sugar Bowl have been less exciting if it wasn't? Come on, how can you even make that logic sound right in your own head, much less post it for the world to see?
Click to expand...
Do you even believe what you write?
 
I think TCU puts a lot of question marks into the 4 game playoff because I think they'd wallop OSU and would be great game between them and the duckies. This year it's fine because the B12 tried to have it all and wound up with nothing.
 
TCU look like they should have been in instead of FSU, but considering the facts the committee had available to make a decision, it was appropriate to leave them out. A 6 or 8 game playoff would help, but that can be a slippery slope. The 4 game playoff is fine for me, but I know others disagree.
 
I'm fully on the "keep it at 4" bandwagon now. I think it provides just enough controversy to make for good water cooler (or internet BBS) conversation, while providing a fantastic outlet for crowning a true national champion.

In short - we finally got it right. No need to fix it.
 
I will add this: This whole thing could have been completely screwed up had UA beaten OU, or Wiscy beaten OSU, Mizzou beaten Bama, or GT beaten FSU in their respective championship games. This whole thing worked because the teams that should have won their conferences did win. Throw an upset into the mix, and all Hell breaks loose.
 
sackman said:
I will add this: This whole thing could have been completely screwed up had UA beaten OU, or Wiscy beaten OSU, Mizzou beaten Bama, or GT beaten FSU in their respective championship games. This whole thing worked because the teams that should have won their conferences did win. Throw an upset into the mix, and all Hell breaks loose.
Click to expand...
That just add to the discussion and controversy!
 
I was cheering for CSU and I don't have a lot of hate for other programs (Nebraska and ND being the exceptions) so do not cheer for people to lose very often. I really enjoyed the Baylor - Michigan State game. Blocked FG attempt at the end to set up the MSU win- you could not script it better. Was cheering for Oregon to win. The Alabama -OSU game surprised me. Alabama did not look like they did against Auburn. The OSU QB was surprisingly good for #3 on the depth chart. I said before the game the Rose Bowl would be more interesting because of better QBs but was surprised by the Sugar Bowl.

I think the Oregon - OSU game sets up as very interesting. I think Oregon wins because of their QB. If the Ducks get ahead of you they start running away.
 
Another thing here is, it felt like Baylor, TCU, and Mich St were playing with a chip on their shoulder for an apparent slight and/or positioning to start next year. None of this "golly, gee, I'm just glad to be here" type games you can see at other times - one could argue Ole Miss and Miss St fell in to this trap, but we saw much less of it in the "big games" than we have in the past, IMO.
 
"The appropriateness of the system" notion is baffling, to me. At no other level of football is the champion awarded based on votes. I'm far more interested in crowning something of a true champion (eight teams would erase most real controversy, but it's hard to justify the practicality), and the current system is an interesting blend of accomplishing that while keeping tradition relevant.

Hokie, is your main problem with the new system centered on how you think the money may flow?
 
The Ogre said:
"The appropriateness of the system" notion is baffling, to me. At no other level of football is the champion awarded based on votes. I'm far more interested in crowning something of a true champion (eight teams would erase most real controversy, but it's hard to justify the practicality), and the current system is an interesting blend of accomplishing that while keeping tradition relevant.

Hokie, is your main problem with the new system centered on how you think the money may flow?
Click to expand...

My main issue is that it makes little sense to try to name any one school "national champion for all of college football". Conferences play by different rules, have different budgets and pull players from different recruiting territories. In the NFL, one champion makes sense, because all the teams have the same cap, pull players from the same draft and play by the same rulebook.

I don't think a college football champion should be awarded based on votes -- I don't think a national college football champ should be awarded at all. I think conference championships should be awarded based on wins/losses in the conference. If teams want to go to bowls, I think 'bowl champions' should be awarded to whichever team wins. Neither of those requires or benefits from having a consensus 'national champ'.
 
hokiehead said:
My main issue is that it makes little sense to try to name any one school "national champion for all of college football". Conferences play by different rules, have different budgets and pull players from different recruiting territories. In the NFL, one champion makes sense, because all the teams have the same cap, pull players from the same draft and play by the same rulebook.

I don't think a college football champion should be awarded based on votes -- I don't think a national college football champ should be awarded at all. I think conference championships should be awarded based on wins/losses in the conference. If teams want to go to bowls, I think 'bowl champions' should be awarded to whichever team wins. Neither of those requires or benefits from having a consensus 'national champ'.
Click to expand...

So there shouldn't be a national champion in any college sport?
 
Hokie - I appreciate your passion for this, but you're not making any sense. We crown national championships in every sport in college. Those conferences and schools still play by different rules for all those other sports.

If you simply like the old system, fine. I liked it too, until yesterday. Until yesterday, the old system was preferable. Yesterday totally changed my mind. The BCS was a disaster, but it was a necessary step to get from where we were to where we are. We are in a much better place now, IMO, than we were last year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top