(05-17-2016 10:43 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(05-17-2016 10:40 AM)reick Wrote:  

(05-17-2016 09:32 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  

(05-16-2016 05:25 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The BCS did what it was supposed to do flawlessly. It matched the two best teams in the country.

flawlessly? It was flawed from the get-go

The representation of the major conferences was awful, because you can't fit 3+ teams into 2 slots

Deciding who the best 2 teams are is a failed process, because you never know who the best 2 teams are....it's relative, opinion-based

No one would have thought Ohio State was the best team in 2014...the BCS National Championship would have been FSU vs. Alabama. Both those teams lost in the semifinals

Football is best when it is actually PLAYED and decided on the field, none of this "Poll" crap. The best thing for college football has been a shift away from ancient opinion-based polls....

Actually I think the BCS would have picked the same 4 teams for a playoff as the committee did in each year. Not in the exact same order though. Your issue may be more about the number of teams included than the system used to pick them.

It goes back to the musical chairs analogy. If you add another game you get another outcome. That doesn't make the previous outcome invalid.

If we add yet another game we are likely to get yet another outcome.

His argument is fundamentally flawed.

Top 8 teams play in four major bowls on New Year's Day. Semis the following week, in other 2 major bowls. Championship two weeks after New Years day.

(05-16-2016 05:25 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The BCS did what it was supposed to do flawlessly. It matched the two best teams in the country.

No it didn't. I know you SEC fans think it did but it didn't most of the time. Bama shouldn't even have been in it the year they beat LSU.

(05-18-2016 10:19 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(05-16-2016 05:25 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The BCS did what it was supposed to do flawlessly. It matched the two best teams in the country.

No it didn't. I know you SEC fans think it did but it didn't most of the time. Bama shouldn't even have been in it the year they beat LSU.

K

(05-17-2016 09:32 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  

(05-16-2016 05:25 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The BCS did what it was supposed to do flawlessly. It matched the two best teams in the country.

flawlessly? It was flawed from the get-go

The representation of the major conferences was awful, because you can't fit 3+ teams into 2 slots

Deciding who the best 2 teams are is a failed process, because you never know who the best 2 teams are....it's relative, opinion-based

No one would have thought Ohio State was the best team in 2014...the BCS National Championship would have been FSU vs. Alabama. Both those teams lost in the semifinals

Football is best when it is actually PLAYED and decided on the field, none of this "Poll" crap. The best thing for college football has been a shift away from ancient opinion-based polls....

There is no way to accurately determine a champ in CFB. There are way too many teams and not enough games.

(05-18-2016 01:15 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(05-17-2016 09:32 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  

(05-16-2016 05:25 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The BCS did what it was supposed to do flawlessly. It matched the two best teams in the country.

flawlessly? It was flawed from the get-go

The representation of the major conferences was awful, because you can't fit 3+ teams into 2 slots

Deciding who the best 2 teams are is a failed process, because you never know who the best 2 teams are....it's relative, opinion-based

No one would have thought Ohio State was the best team in 2014...the BCS National Championship would have been FSU vs. Alabama. Both those teams lost in the semifinals

Football is best when it is actually PLAYED and decided on the field, none of this "Poll" crap. The best thing for college football has been a shift away from ancient opinion-based polls....

There is no way to accurately determine a champ in CFB. There are way too many teams and not enough games.

While technically true, 4 champs does at least provide a winner among winners.

(05-18-2016 01:15 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(05-17-2016 09:32 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  

(05-16-2016 05:25 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The BCS did what it was supposed to do flawlessly. It matched the two best teams in the country.

flawlessly? It was flawed from the get-go

The representation of the major conferences was awful, because you can't fit 3+ teams into 2 slots

Deciding who the best 2 teams are is a failed process, because you never know who the best 2 teams are....it's relative, opinion-based

No one would have thought Ohio State was the best team in 2014...the BCS National Championship would have been FSU vs. Alabama. Both those teams lost in the semifinals

Football is best when it is actually PLAYED and decided on the field, none of this "Poll" crap. The best thing for college football has been a shift away from ancient opinion-based polls....

There is no way to accurately determine a champ in CFB. There are way too many teams and not enough games.

I'd have to agree.

There are too many scenarios where the best play second fiddle to the lucky.

(05-18-2016 06:19 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(05-18-2016 01:15 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(05-17-2016 09:32 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  

(05-16-2016 05:25 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The BCS did what it was supposed to do flawlessly. It matched the two best teams in the country.

flawlessly? It was flawed from the get-go

The representation of the major conferences was awful, because you can't fit 3+ teams into 2 slots

Deciding who the best 2 teams are is a failed process, because you never know who the best 2 teams are....it's relative, opinion-based

No one would have thought Ohio State was the best team in 2014...the BCS National Championship would have been FSU vs. Alabama. Both those teams lost in the semifinals

Football is best when it is actually PLAYED and decided on the field, none of this "Poll" crap. The best thing for college football has been a shift away from ancient opinion-based polls....

There is no way to accurately determine a champ in CFB. There are way too many teams and not enough games.

I'd have to agree.

There are too many scenarios where the best play second fiddle to the lucky.

Get over it. It's called life! Your premise is one of assumption. You assume who is best. The games are played, rightly or wrongly, to put an end to those assumptions for at least a year. It is the best we humans can do since we are not omniscient. Therefore the title of champion rightly goes to the one who seizes the moment and the day.

(05-18-2016 06:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-18-2016 06:19 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(05-18-2016 01:15 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(05-17-2016 09:32 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  

(05-16-2016 05:25 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The BCS did what it was supposed to do flawlessly. It matched the two best teams in the country.

flawlessly? It was flawed from the get-go

The representation of the major conferences was awful, because you can't fit 3+ teams into 2 slots

Deciding who the best 2 teams are is a failed process, because you never know who the best 2 teams are....it's relative, opinion-based

No one would have thought Ohio State was the best team in 2014...the BCS National Championship would have been FSU vs. Alabama. Both those teams lost in the semifinals

Football is best when it is actually PLAYED and decided on the field, none of this "Poll" crap. The best thing for college football has been a shift away from ancient opinion-based polls....

There is no way to accurately determine a champ in CFB. There are way too many teams and not enough games.

I'd have to agree.

There are too many scenarios where the best play second fiddle to the lucky.

Get over it. It's called life! Your premise is one of assumption. You assume who is best. The games are played, rightly or wrongly, to put an end to those assumptions for at least a year. It is the best we humans can do since we are not omniscient.

Well, the question then comes back around to the process.

The games merely create an issue with the process and do not serve to prove anything.

That's been half the problem thus far.

(05-18-2016 06:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-18-2016 06:19 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(05-18-2016 01:15 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(05-17-2016 09:32 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  

(05-16-2016 05:25 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The BCS did what it was supposed to do flawlessly. It matched the two best teams in the country.

flawlessly? It was flawed from the get-go

The representation of the major conferences was awful, because you can't fit 3+ teams into 2 slots

Deciding who the best 2 teams are is a failed process, because you never know who the best 2 teams are....it's relative, opinion-based

No one would have thought Ohio State was the best team in 2014...the BCS National Championship would have been FSU vs. Alabama. Both those teams lost in the semifinals

Football is best when it is actually PLAYED and decided on the field, none of this "Poll" crap. The best thing for college football has been a shift away from ancient opinion-based polls....

There is no way to accurately determine a champ in CFB. There are way too many teams and not enough games.

I'd have to agree.

There are too many scenarios where the best play second fiddle to the lucky.

Get over it. It's called life! Your premise is one of assumption. You assume who is best. The games are played, rightly or wrongly, to put an end to those assumptions for at least a year. It is the best we humans can do since we are not omniscient. Therefore the title of champion rightly goes to the one who seizes the moment and the day.

The issue I have is that many aren't willing to accept your 'this is life' premise. They actually believe that there is actually another process that does a better job at determining a champ than the one in use.

Ultimately all they are angling for is the perception of opportunity for those they feel might have a structural disadvantage. It's why the Final Four is touted as a superior system when the reality is that it is just as flawed. Just like gambling websites, the crowning of a champion is for entertainment purposes only.

(05-18-2016 06:27 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(05-18-2016 06:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-18-2016 06:19 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(05-18-2016 01:15 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(05-17-2016 09:32 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  flawlessly? It was flawed from the get-go

The representation of the major conferences was awful, because you can't fit 3+ teams into 2 slots

Deciding who the best 2 teams are is a failed process, because you never know who the best 2 teams are....it's relative, opinion-based

No one would have thought Ohio State was the best team in 2014...the BCS National Championship would have been FSU vs. Alabama. Both those teams lost in the semifinals

Football is best when it is actually PLAYED and decided on the field, none of this "Poll" crap. The best thing for college football has been a shift away from ancient opinion-based polls....

There is no way to accurately determine a champ in CFB. There are way too many teams and not enough games.

I'd have to agree.

There are too many scenarios where the best play second fiddle to the lucky.

Get over it. It's called life! Your premise is one of assumption. You assume who is best. The games are played, rightly or wrongly, to put an end to those assumptions for at least a year. It is the best we humans can do since we are not omniscient.

Well, the question then comes back around to the process.

The games merely create an issue with the process and do not serve to prove anything.

That's been half the problem thus far.

HoD, all any athletic event has ever proven is who rose to the occasion. They have never been about who is better, just who is better at a given moment with or without luck. Randomness is the essence of life on an imperfect plain.

So I might ask what has your life, or anyone's proven? The issue is not the process. The issue is not the games. The issue is how you choose to spend your time. Many people choose to spend their time being entertained. The purpose the games serve are the ones for which they generate revenue which is chiefly entertainment. For the athletes they are a stepping stone to a bigger sports career, an opportunity for an education which most choose to eschew, or a risk they take with full knowledge that an injury may negatively alter the course of their life.

All the fans care about is the game, and the opportunity it gives them to feel vicariously some sense of accomplishment, or anger over some sense of failure that is not even theirs.

I gave up going a year ago after nearly 5 decades of holding season tickets. Why? Because it took me that long to feel fleeced!

(05-16-2016 02:40 PM)EvilVodka Wrote:  I think the playoff is a massive improvement over the old system...the further we get away from opinion polls, the better. Play it on the FIELD

The BCS was a necessary stepping stone but lasted too long. It took Alabama's 2011 mulligan to make everyone jump ship.

I think we could eventually expand to a 6 or 8 team playoff. The most important thing is to reward conference champs

Agree. I think you should have to win your conference to get into the playoffs. How that shakes out? Not sure.
P4 only If Big12 crashes?
P5&G5's are all in the mix? (Would result in another massive realignment) P5 fans shouldn't worry as they'd beat the G5 team.

(05-18-2016 10:19 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(05-16-2016 05:25 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The BCS did what it was supposed to do flawlessly. It matched the two best teams in the country.

No it didn't. I know you SEC fans think it did but it didn't most of the time. Bama shouldn't even have been in it the year they beat LSU.

And ... Notre Dame had no business being in the championship game against Alabama. They were over rated.

(05-20-2016 06:38 AM)GhentFan Wrote:  

(05-18-2016 10:19 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(05-16-2016 05:25 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The BCS did what it was supposed to do flawlessly. It matched the two best teams in the country.

No it didn't. I know you SEC fans think it did but it didn't most of the time. Bama shouldn't even have been in it the year they beat LSU.

And ... Notre Dame had no business being in the championship game against Alabama. They were over rated.

I agree with both of the last two posts. Notre Dame was over rated but why? National appeal for the advertising rates they would pull. There wasn't another national brand close enough to the Irish's ability to draw ratings and they had built up Teo's profile all year before the bogus girlfriend story blew up. It was an ESPN creation plain and simple.

And, Oklahoma State should have played L.S.U. for the title. IMO the Tigers got screwed (even though Alabama won). L.S.U. won a hard fought game on the road and I don't care what people think getting up for a big opponent twice in a season is a tough trick to pull. The game got the ratings it deserved but what does that tell you? Oklahoma State could only draw an audience from North Texas through Oklahoma. ESPN felt that Alabama would draw the nation.

The BCS and the CFP were creations of ESPN as much as anyone, but network involvement was there from other interests as well. It was never interested in matching the best two schools, or even now with including the best 4. The selection committee proved that up front with the snub of the Big 12 privates in favor of Ohio State. The Buckeyes winning it all was a serendipity for the networks in that it made the CFP committee look smart.

What all of this has been about has been to be a vehicle that brings you the best two schools with the largest national following if possible. And now the best four schools with the largest national following.

That is why I am for a champs only model. It's not perfect either, but at least the schools play their way into the finals. Archie Manning has been an honorable guy. His quick departure from the CFP committee was telling IMO. I think he got the drift on why it was a committee packed with corporately acceptable names and did the only thing he knew to do to keep from facing a dilemma of character, withdraw.