Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 32
  1. #16
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,726
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by desertrat218 View Post
    More on Georgia, Florida was the only ranked team they beat. Their next best win was Vanderbilt who went 8-4. After Vanderbilt their next best win was Ole Miss or Georgia Tech...both 6-6. The other 7 teams they faced have losing records or were FCS level.
    Whatever. This Georgia conversation is getting old. If Georgia beats Bama, how do they not deserve to play in the NC game. They will have beaten the #4 team in the nation (Florida) and the #2 team in the nation (Bama). Nothing else will matter at that point.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    16,329
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by desertrat218 View Post
    More on Georgia, Florida was the only ranked team they beat. Their next best win was Vanderbilt who went 8-4. After Vanderbilt their next best win was Ole Miss or Georgia Tech...both 6-6. The other 7 teams they faced have losing records or were FCS level.
    I'm not happy about it either but that's the system until the playoff. But honestly, which teams other than a 12-1 SEC Champion Georgia would have a legitimate case to play for the National Championship? Kansas State? They were hammered just as badly as the Dawgs by a worse team. Oregon? Perhaps. But just like Georgia, they've played two good teams all year and went 1-1 against them. And Georgia's best win beats the hell out of Oregon's best win.

    As far as resumes go, Florida has an argument until you look at where the L came from in their W/L column.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Myrtle Beach, South Carolina
    Posts
    14,895
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by B'sCeltsPatsSox View Post
    Yeah I saw Brad Edwards tweet the following earlier today...







    Can't wait for the playoff lol.
    There is only one thing wrong with the BCS right now: All the automatic "Tie-in's." A playoffs would create more controversy than you already have right now. You figure if you did an 8 team playoff right now, Georgia would get in, but South Carolina would not; oh yeah, by the way, South Carolina beat Georgia 35-7.

    Or how about UCLA's gripe: We could at least play for the Pac-12 championship; Oregon couldn't. Why shouldn't we be in the playoffs instead of them?
    PSD's Sheldon Richardson!!!

  4. #19
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,726
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by ccugrad1 View Post
    There is only one thing wrong with the BCS right now: All the automatic "Tie-in's." A playoffs would create more controversy than you already have right now. You figure if you did an 8 team playoff right now, Georgia would get in, but South Carolina would not; oh yeah, by the way, South Carolina beat Georgia 35-7.

    Or how about UCLA's gripe: We could at least play for the Pac-12 championship; Oregon couldn't. Why shouldn't we be in the playoffs instead of them?
    Not much of an argument. Georgia is a one loss team and SC is a two loss team and would be ranked higher that SC no matter what type of system one would try to use.
    What gripe could UCLA possibly have? They are a 3 loss team on their way to being a 4 loss team. Even if they managed to beat Stanford, they would what jump from 16 to 15. Using your scenario, there are a ton of 2 loss teams that have a more legitimate complaint than UCLA.

    You want controversy. Imagine if we had this proposed 4 team 2014 playoff system that is suppose to go into effect in place right now. You would have ND, Bama, Georgia, and Florida playing. Yea buddy, now that would create some kind of uproar.
    Last edited by Wingman; 11-30-2012 at 12:16 PM.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Alcoa, Tn
    Posts
    916
    vCash
    1500
    Rose: Stanford(p12) vs Nebraska(b10)
    Sugar:Florida(SEC highest) vs Oklahoma(at large)
    Fiesta:Kansas St(b12) vs Oregon(at large)
    Orange: FSU(acc) vs Louisville(be)
    NCG: Alabama(#2) vs Notre Dame(#1)

    Bold=Already decided

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    16,329
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Wingman View Post
    Not much of an argument. Georgia is a one loss team and SC is a two loss team and would be ranked higher that SC no matter what type of system one would try to use.
    What gripe could UCLA possibly have? They are a 3 loss team on their way to being a 4 loss team. Even if they managed to beat Stanford, they would what jump from 16 to 15. Using your scenario, there are a ton of 2 loss teams that have a more legitimate complaint than UCLA.

    You want controversy. Imagine if we had this proposed 4 team 2014 playoff system that is suppose to go into effect in place right now. You would have ND, Bama, Georgia, and Florida playing. Yea buddy, now that would create some kind of uproar.
    Would we? A Bama/Georgia loss in the SEC Championship Game would probably be enough for Oregon to climb to #4.

    If not, then there would be even more uproar. Non-SEC fans would be furious to see three SEC teams in the top four despite one having just suffered loss. 10-2 Texas A&M (which beat Alabama) and 10-2 South Carolina (which beat Georgia) wouldn't be very happy either.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Alcoa, Tn
    Posts
    916
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Catfish1314 View Post
    Would we? A Bama/Georgia loss in the SEC Championship Game would probably be enough for Oregon to climb to #4.

    If not, then there would be even more uproar. Non-SEC fans would be furious to see three SEC teams in the top four despite one having just suffered loss. 10-2 Texas A&M (which beat Alabama) and 10-2 South Carolina (which beat Georgia) wouldn't be very happy either.
    Personally, you can make arguments/disagreements to anything the NCAA does. Whether its BCS or a "playoff" system using the top 4 teams. Its wrong. While I believe Alabama was the best team in the country last year, they didnt deserve to play for a national title. They didnt win their conference. If we went to a 4 team playoff and Oregon played in it this year (or Florida for that matter), neither team would deserve it. I still think you have to use the main conferences Champions (SEC, Pac12, Big10, Big12) and then 2 Automatic Qualifiers. Either the two highest ranking champions (ACC, Big East etc...or Notre Dame if their in a certain spot in the standings)

    For instance, Oklahoma(B12) would play FSU (AQ-ACC) in the first round. Notre Dame (AQ-Indy) would play Nebraska (B10) in the first round. The winners of those games would then face off in the second round. Alabama and Stanford (Champions of the SEC and P12) would receive first round byes for being the highest rated conference champions....HOWEVER, for also receiving the bye, they also face off in the second round. So round two looks like Alabama (SEC) vs Stanford (P12) & (using just highest rated teams) Oklahoma (B12) vs Notre Dame (AQ).

    Does teams like Oregon, Florida, K-State etc get left out? Yea, but that's life and crap happens. On top of that if you let your National Title tournament "travel" like the super bowl does (changing locations every year..basically "bidding" on games) the NCAA makes even MORE money. Then you can keep your traditional bowls for teams that didnt make the playoffs. Oregon vs Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl or K-State vs Florida in the Sugar or whatever teams the BCS bowls decide to bid on.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,726
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by NYYankees12 View Post
    Personally, you can make arguments/disagreements to anything the NCAA does. Whether its BCS or a "playoff" system using the top 4 teams. Its wrong. While I believe Alabama was the best team in the country last year, they didnt deserve to play for a national title. They didnt win their conference. If we went to a 4 team playoff and Oregon played in it this year (or Florida for that matter), neither team would deserve it. I still think you have to use the main conferences Champions (SEC, Pac12, Big10, Big12) and then 2 Automatic Qualifiers. Either the two highest ranking champions (ACC, Big East etc...or Notre Dame if their in a certain spot in the standings)

    For instance, Oklahoma(B12) would play FSU (AQ-ACC) in the first round. Notre Dame (AQ-Indy) would play Nebraska (B10) in the first round. The winners of those games would then face off in the second round. Alabama and Stanford (Champions of the SEC and P12) would receive first round byes for being the highest rated conference champions....HOWEVER, for also receiving the bye, they also face off in the second round. So round two looks like Alabama (SEC) vs Stanford (P12) & (using just highest rated teams) Oklahoma (B12) vs Notre Dame (AQ).

    Does teams like Oregon, Florida, K-State etc get left out? Yea, but that's life and crap happens. On top of that if you let your National Title tournament "travel" like the super bowl does (changing locations every year..basically "bidding" on games) the NCAA makes even MORE money. Then you can keep your traditional bowls for teams that didnt make the playoffs. Oregon vs Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl or K-State vs Florida in the Sugar or whatever teams the BCS bowls decide to bid on.
    I don't agree with the conference winners getting an automatic berth. The top ranked teams go....period. If you didn't get it done during the regular season, then you're out. End of Story.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Alcoa, Tn
    Posts
    916
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Wingman View Post
    I don't agree with the conference winners getting an automatic berth. The top ranked teams go....period. If you didn't get it done during the regular season, then you're out. End of Story.
    If you dont get it done in the regular season, then you're not gonna be playing for your Conference Championship. See Oregon, LSU, Florida etc. Conference play is basically a playoff anyway. Win your division, win your conference then win the National Title. If you cant do the first two, you dont deserve to win the third. Period...End of Story.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,726
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by NYYankees12 View Post
    If you dont get it done in the regular season, then you're not gonna be playing for your Conference Championship. See Oregon, LSU, Florida etc. Conference play is basically a playoff anyway. Win your division, win your conference then win the National Title. If you cant do the first two, you dont deserve to win the third. Period...End of Story.
    Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. That totally defeats the purpose of having playoffs. For example, A 8-5 Wisconsin should be in the playoffs as opposed to 11-1 Florida, 11-1 Oregon, 11-1 Kansas State and I haven't even gotten to the 10-2, 9-3 teams. No way this should ever happen. Ever.

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    16,329
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by NYYankees12 View Post
    If you dont get it done in the regular season, then you're not gonna be playing for your Conference Championship. See Oregon, LSU, Florida etc. Conference play is basically a playoff anyway. Win your division, win your conference then win the National Title. If you cant do the first two, you dont deserve to win the third. Period...End of Story.
    That's rewarding teams who play in crap conferences and punishing teams playing in deep conferences.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Alcoa, Tn
    Posts
    916
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Catfish1314 View Post
    That's rewarding teams who play in crap conferences and punishing teams playing in deep conferences.
    Not necessarily. Like i said, the Automatic Conference qualifiers are still the same as they are currently in the BCS (SEC, Pac12, Big10, Big12). You actually give more of a chance to "take out" two of the weaker conferences in the ACC and Big East but you can also give a shot at a "Cinderella" team like years ago with Boise St/TCU. If you want, just have 1 AQ team, the highest "AQ Conference Champion" and then a "wild card"...but then again, you're going to get people saying "its biased" because in this situation and SEC team (Florida) would get in. If they win, we're back to the "they cant even win their conference" argument we got last year. Its the same exact set up the NCAA uses for basketball. Conf champions & "wild cards/at large" however you prefer to call them. This year is a perfect example. Boise St plays in a crap conference, wins it but because of who they played/lost to and their ranking...The ACC Champion and Notre Dame both out rank them. So they're out. You can play in a crap conference but you STILL have to play good teams because there's still a rankings system.

    On top of that, you're not really "hurting" some of these other teams. In my scenario, all the BCS bowls would be open to play for other teams. Lets assume Oregon doesnt get an "at large" bid this year (which we know they will)...where would they be heading? Sun Bowl? In a situation like this, Oregon, a team that didnt win their division/conference still gets rewarded for their regular season by going to the Rose Bowl.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wingman View Post
    Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. That totally defeats the purpose of having playoffs. For example, A 8-5 Wisconsin should be in the playoffs as opposed to 11-1 Florida, 11-1 Oregon, 11-1 Kansas State and I haven't even gotten to the 10-2, 9-3 teams. No way this should ever happen. Ever.
    Ask the Patriots about going 11-5 and missing the playoffs while Denver went 8-8 and got in. Or an 89-73 (.549) Yankees team missing the playoffs while an 89-74 (.546) White Sox team gets in. Its happened in just about every sport and people moved on like it was nothing. Why should college football be any different. People want to complain when Nebraska/Alabama dont win their conference but play for Nat'l Titles but then complain when someone says "You should win your conference if you want to play for the Nat'l Title". You cant have your cake and eat it to.
    Last edited by NYYankees12; 12-01-2012 at 10:20 PM.

  13. #28
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,726
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Catfish1314 View Post
    That's rewarding teams who play in crap conferences and punishing teams playing in deep conferences.


    Absolutely. And those are the teams and/or people that will scream that the conference champions should have automatic berths.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Alcoa, Tn
    Posts
    916
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Wingman View Post
    [/B]

    Absolutely. And those are the teams and/or people that will scream that the conference champions should have automatic berths.
    You should really go back and look at the last 2-3 years worth of threads man. I understand what you're getting at, I promise I do. Oregon would probably wipe the map with Wisconsin but look at old threads on here. Boise St and TCU fans were up in arms saying "we need a playoff, we're undefeated and ranked in the top 5...we need a playoff" They didnt play anyone. They played MAC and Mt West teams. By giving a simple top 4-5 team playoff, you're rewarding those teams.

    Just find the threads from last year. Everyone was throwing a fit saying Bama didnt deserve to play for the title because they didnt win their conference and Oklahoma St should have played because they had the same record and won their conference. The argument FOR a playoff is "teams can NOT win their conference and play for the Nat'l Title" and the argument AGAINST the Conf Champion playoffs is "Teams can NOT win their conference and play for a Nat'l Title"....it sounds more to me that people just want their team to play for a title if they dont win their conference and nobody else.

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    9,351
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Wingman View Post
    Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. That totally defeats the purpose of having playoffs. For example, A 8-5 Wisconsin should be in the playoffs as opposed to 11-1 Florida, 11-1 Oregon, 11-1 Kansas State and I haven't even gotten to the 10-2, 9-3 teams. No way this should ever happen. Ever.
    Quote Originally Posted by Catfish1314 View Post
    That's rewarding teams who play in crap conferences and punishing teams playing in deep conferences.
    that's why you have wildcards. Non-conference champs could be included (2 spots?) if they're ranked above a conference champ.

    Conference Champ
    Conference Champ
    Conference Champ
    Conference Champ
    At-large
    At-large


    Cameron Jordan is awesome

    12.5 sacks and this http://instagram.com/p/jfs5DemKo3/

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •