dutch91701

 

Nobody is saying multiple rounds isn't a playoff, you are the one saying that a single round isn't a playoff. That is incorrect. A single game can be a playoff.

 

 

I said nothing of the sort.

Then what are you even arguing?

So I went and read the definition of "playoff" in several sources and Dutch is correct. It can be one game or a series of games. I'm not sure why people feel that they can use their perception to argue facts. You can say that you (and all your friends) believe that in essence 2+2=5...but it doesn't change the fact. A table can have one leg, two legs, 4 legs, 6, 8, etc...it's still a table. You can't make up your own definitions. So then, if by definition, a playoff can be a game or series of games that determines a champion, then the only thing the NCAA is doing next year is expanding the playoff.

 

You didn't use the full definition. It can only be one game to determine the winner if there is a tie. That means overtime is a playoff by definition. Plus, you picked from the secondary definition and not the primary which is:

 

a series of games that is played after the end of the regular season in order to decide which player or team is the champion

 

Since you're using the secondary definition which is "a game or series of games that is played to decide the winner when people or teams are tied" you have to pay attention to the portions in bold. That means if you do a single game and teams are still tied (win loss record), there has to be more games to eliminate the tie...it's part of the definition of the word and I'm not sure why you feel you can use your perception to argue facts.

 

You can say that you and all your friends believe that 2 + 2 ≠ 5....but it doesn't change the fact. Yadda Yadda...so on and so forth.

 

In other words, you're both right and wrong. You're right in saying that 1 game is a playoff if it results in a tie or is with 2 teams that have a tied record...but we are also correct in showing that if multiple people have the same exact record, a play-off will mean multiple games to satisfy the second portion of the definition of the word....to decide the winner, a tie cannot be present and thus more games are played until a tie does not exist.

Uhhh, actually I looked at several dictionary sources and your definition of a game to settle a tie is just one definition. There is also a definition (the first in many sources, but it's there in all of the ones I looked up) that says something like this one from Webster: "Noun 1. playoff - any final competition to determine a championship". I am pretty sure the BCS championship game would qualify as a "final competition".

 

So, just as I said above...it is a playoff if it is a one game championship or if it is a series of games. What part of this is so hard to understand? I am not "both right and wrong". I am right...I know I am right, because I can read.

 

 

 

LOL. So you state I'm right with my definition and then insist that yours is still the only right one after...interesting I suppose.

 

For someone harping on understanding you don't seem to understand very well.

Nobody is saying multiple rounds isn't a playoff, you are the one saying that a single round isn't a playoff. That is incorrect. A single game can be a playoff.

The Double EntAndres are my pick for 2014.

Less convoluted predictions:

 

Oregon wins PAC 12

Nebraska wins Big Ten

FSU wins ACC

Cincinati wins American

Tennessee wins SEC (total crapshoot prediction and HIGHLY unlikely but the East is WIDE open and the West could beat itself up)

Oklahoma wins Big 12

 

A Double wins the Heisman

 

Bo Pelini wins Coach of the Year

 

Ok......I may have drank too much Kool Aide this morning.

Hey man, I'm with it.

They DO have a pink locker room. It's funny.

 

 

It's also the opposing team's locker room.

I know that, but it's on their campus. The visiting team doesn't take ownership of the property, right? I get that they make the opposing team stay in a pink locker room and it's a "haha you're in a pink locker room" type thing.

So I went and read the definition of "playoff" in several sources and Dutch is correct. It can be one game or a series of games. I'm not sure why people feel that they can use their perception to argue facts. You can say that you (and all your friends) believe that in essence 2+2=5...but it doesn't change the fact. A table can have one leg, two legs, 4 legs, 6, 8, etc...it's still a table. You can't make up your own definitions. So then, if by definition, a playoff can be a game or series of games that determines a champion, then the only thing the NCAA is doing next year is expanding the playoff.

 

You didn't use the full definition. It can only be one game to determine the winner if there is a tie. That means overtime is a playoff by definition. Plus, you picked from the secondary definition and not the primary which is:

 

a series of games that is played after the end of the regular season in order to decide which player or team is the champion

 

Since you're using the secondary definition which is "a game or series of games that is played to decide the winner when people or teams are tied" you have to pay attention to the portions in bold. That means if you do a single game and teams are still tied (win loss record), there has to be more games to eliminate the tie...it's part of the definition of the word and I'm not sure why you feel you can use your perception to argue facts.

 

You can say that you and all your friends believe that 2 + 2 ≠ 5....but it doesn't change the fact. Yadda Yadda...so on and so forth.

 

In other words, you're both right and wrong. You're right in saying that 1 game is a playoff if it results in a tie or is with 2 teams that have a tied record...but we are also correct in showing that if multiple people have the same exact record, a play-off will mean multiple games to satisfy the second portion of the definition of the word....to decide the winner, a tie cannot be present and thus more games are played until a tie does not exist.

Two teams "play off" to determine a champion (or other title, as previously discussed). That's where the term originated. Notice that the NFL Playoffs are "Playoffs". The NBA Playoffs are "Playoffs". They are plural because there are multiple instances of a play-off within one bracket. Play-off is singular. Two teams. It has since been taken to mean the whole bracket as well but, that doesn't change what it is. Two teams make a play-off, Four teams makes play-offs, and after that it is just further rounds of play-offs. Like I said earlier, is the four-team bracket next year two play-off games and a bowl game? Or is it two rounds of play-offs with the final round being dubbed the "Championship Game".

The part I bolded is not necessarily true. Multiple games can be played, but are not necessary, to determine a champion in the context of college football.

I know, it was hard for me to watch too. I just love that the same people who will post in the Husker Prayer thread, " and cheer as the winners go by" then resume telling us how crappy Iowa is. Especially after they beat us, then bum rushed OUR sideline and grabbed the trophy off of OUR TURF.

 

I want to make it clear, this is more of a general statement towards all the people still saying Iowa sucks, not really directed at the post above about their locker room. The locker room comment seemed like more of a joke. I'm just amazed at all the people I talk football with here and elsewhere who still have the nerve to say Iowa sucks. It makes me laugh.

 

I don't need nerves to say Iowa sucks. I don't like them, and Nebraska is 28-13-3 all-time against them.

What's our record against MSU? Lot of good that did us...

Nobody's saying we beat Iowa......But, if the B1G has made them our last-game-of-the-season-rival, then we can talk crap like a rival, always. A rivalry isn't a rivalry without an unsolicited F-You every now and then. They DO have a pink locker room. It's funny. Always on the table as a talking point, IMO.

The thing I hated the worst about the 2009 Texas game was the fact that it set us up perfectly for a dominating revenge game in Lincoln the next season. A game that everyone was amped up for. So thirsty for Longhorn blood were we! Well, everyone except the actual team, who pissed down their leg instead.

 

Even with so many heartbreaking losses and blowouts over the past few years, there was nothing more disappointing than the 2010 Texas game.

I know...Literally let 24-28 points bounce off receivers hands. Et tu Burkhead?!

All you are doing is playing with words, while ignoring the essence of the thing itself. We all know what a playoff is, it is multiple teams playing in order to reach quarter finals, semifinals and then the finals. In some cases this is subdivided further or to a lesser degree. However in general knowledge terms a playoff is not 2 teams playing in a final. It's a cute play on words and misdirected logic your using, but that's all it is.

 

All you are doing is spreading a misconception. Playoffs can exist with any number of teams but 1. Any post-season, championship-determining game, or series of games, is a playoff. The two best teams "play off" for a title. That's where the term originated. To say that I'm the one contorting it is completely off base. Fans may use the term to reference a specific style of postseason (same style, just bigger), but it means the same thing as it did initially. I've given a dictionary definition, outlined the logic I used (and you can too!), given hypothetical as well as real world examples. You can't just say I'm wrong and you're right because you feel like being right. "We all know what a playoff is" is not an argument. In fact, as you and several others have proven, it's absolutely untrue.

 

Typing enough convoluted BS I can also turn the mating of the wild otter into a college football playoff, but it would still be BS. No point arguing further, this is like going in circles with someone who doesn't believe that there were moon landings.

So because you lack the intelligence to keep up with the conversation, I'm equated to people who don't believe in moon landings? My argument is not convoluted. In fact, it's the opposite. If you'd like I can create an outline for you...or perhaps a pop-up book is more your speed?

 

You made a poor argument that's all, I'm not the only one to have pointed that out to you, but you insist you are the most intelligent human being in the world and we just don't get this truly dizzying intellect of yours. To be fair I'm not going to attack it as you would likely freak out completely and honestly it would serve no purpose or be entirely factual since I don't know you well at all.

However my comparison to those who don't believe in moon landings is based on exactly the pattern you are exhibiting which sadly is culminating with the proclamation of a superior intellect and how we just don't get it, so meh.

I made an argument that nobody has disproven in any way. If it's so poor, why hasn't anyone taken it down? If anyone is exhibiting that behavior it's you. I've provided facts, definitions, and examples supporting my argument. All I've received in return is "we all know what a playoff is". That's not an argument.

 

I have to provide citations for breaking down a process logically? It doesn't matter how many people say it, it's fact. There is a playoff RIGHT NOW. All that 2014 changes is doubling the size of the playoff. Want proof? 4 team playoff bracket...how many rounds are there? 2 right? Four teams play to get to two teams, two teams play for champion. Unless you're saying that the teams would play one playoff game and one bowl game? That's really your only argument here without conceding that I'm right.

 

 

I'd agree with you if there were cross conference games played before the championship...but there aren't...so while you technically are correct...it doesn't feel correct at all.

Well thank you. There are non-conference games. Here's the thing: at the end of the year, there are usually one or two legit undefeated teams at the end of the year. If you win all your games in an AQ conference, you deserve to get in. If you lose, you subject yourself to the randomness of the postseason selection process. That doesn't change with expanding the playoffs.

I could live with the recently deceased system being called a play off if not for one thing. 2011 Alabama vs LSU. That game alone proved the the regular season does not count as much as they told us it did. A regular season rematch in the top game of all college football? If its a playoff or not, it wasnt that year.

I don't have the issue with that one that many had. The first game finished 9-6 (I think) in OT. For the cast majority of the history of college football, that would have been a tie. College overtime is such a ridiculous crapshoot it's not even funny (unless it's a MWC game that goes into OT at 63-63, then it's hilarious) so I didn't mind seeing that. Especially since OK State had a chance to be in it and sh#t the bed.

 

I couldnt tell you if it went to OT because I fell asleep halfway through. Easily the most boring game I saw that year yet the commentators at CBS treated it like it was the Battle at the Alamo. You could see the fix was in considering Gameday was there for the game and it wasnt even on their network.that night.

 

I didnt want to get into this argument but here goes. Alabama should have sh#t the bed with the loss to LSU. BUT because SEC perceived perception is so durn important they slid in without winning their division. Oklajoma State on the other hand had a rough week where a faculty .ember died and they lost a close actually exciti g game to an underrated ISU team that woulda been ranked 12th if their logo said SEC and not Big XII. Okie State won their conference. Alabama did not. Alabama got in. LSU earned their spot by going undefeated and winning the SEC. Alabama blew it. Okie State ended up knocking off Stanford. LSU didnt bother to show up for the Championship getti g shutout by Bama.

 

This game proved perception is more important than the regular season.

You have a point. Alabama DID lose. Now, I argue that it was to the #1 team, who did go undefeated. That wasn't necessarily based on perception. 13-0 is 13-0. The argument could (and was) definitely made for OKState, who certainly had a great season. Personally I think the 9-6 game was a good game. I enjoy solid defense, but if you're an offense guy, then that's your right. The entertainment factor of the game isn't really the issue. I will DEFINITELY not argue the SEC bias.

Wow, us Husker fans have a bit of an unhealthy obsession with this game. Texas had the ball with the clock stopped inside the 30 yard line with 7 seconds left, and a timeout. We nearly lucked out anyway (as in many games, it comes down to so many little things) on account of some horrendous decision making on their part, but we didn't because of fractions of seconds. Not getting into the technicalities, but before that play we had already squandered our late lead and taken fate out of our own hands.

The entire last drive was a Big XII hatchet job, minus the kickoff. The sideline is the sideline, Kunalic.

I could live with the recently deceased system being called a play off if not for one thing. 2011 Alabama vs LSU. That game alone proved the the regular season does not count as much as they told us it did. A regular season rematch in the top game of all college football? If its a playoff or not, it wasnt that year.

I don't have the issue with that one that many had. The first game finished 9-6 (I think) in OT. For the cast majority of the history of college football, that would have been a tie. College overtime is such a ridiculous crapshoot it's not even funny (unless it's a MWC game that goes into OT at 63-63, then it's hilarious) so I didn't mind seeing that. Especially since OK State had a chance to be in it and sh#t the bed.

All you are doing is playing with words, while ignoring the essence of the thing itself. We all know what a playoff is, it is multiple teams playing in order to reach quarter finals, semifinals and then the finals. In some cases this is subdivided further or to a lesser degree. However in general knowledge terms a playoff is not 2 teams playing in a final. It's a cute play on words and misdirected logic your using, but that's all it is.

 

All you are doing is spreading a misconception. Playoffs can exist with any number of teams but 1. Any post-season, championship-determining game, or series of games, is a playoff. The two best teams "play off" for a title. That's where the term originated. To say that I'm the one contorting it is completely off base. Fans may use the term to reference a specific style of postseason (same style, just bigger), but it means the same thing as it did initially. I've given a dictionary definition, outlined the logic I used (and you can too!), given hypothetical as well as real world examples. You can't just say I'm wrong and you're right because you feel like being right. "We all know what a playoff is" is not an argument. In fact, as you and several others have proven, it's absolutely untrue.

 

Typing enough convoluted BS I can also turn the mating of the wild otter into a college football playoff, but it would still be BS. No point arguing further, this is like going in circles with someone who doesn't believe that there were moon landings.

So because you lack the intelligence to keep up with the conversation, I'm equated to people who don't believe in moon landings? My argument is not convoluted. In fact, it's the opposite. If you'd like I can create an outline for you...or perhaps a pop-up book is more your speed?

Any chance of Sanders coming back for more than just DB coach? Sanders can flat out coach and recruit and it seems JP flat out can't. Seems to make sense. Sanders would be a slam dunk at DB coach, so why all the other names floating around? Just throwing some stuff at the wall here.

 

 

I don't know where you heard that Sanders can recruit, but the truth is that Sanders is a terrible recruiter. We need people who can recruit and don't embarrase the university on thier recruiting trips. Which of course means that Sanders should never be a Husker again.

I'm not sure where you heard he was a terrible recruiter. He's credited with playing a major role in signing Andrew Rodriguez (non DB, obviously), Corey Cooper, Josh Mitchell, and a fairly successful CB by the name of Alfonso Dennard. Two of those guys are coming back and would be working with Sanders if he is to be the DB coach.

Any chance of Sanders coming back for more than just DB coach? Sanders can flat out coach and recruit and it seems JP flat out can't. Seems to make sense. Sanders would be a slam dunk at DB coach, so why all the other names floating around? Just throwing some stuff at the wall here.

Not true. Pap is a pretty dang good recruiter with some good ties in the northeast especially. I would actually say Pap is a better recruiter than Sanders.

Meant coaching. Seems my thoughts ran together there. My apologies.

Any chance of Sanders coming back for more than just DB coach? Sanders can flat out coach and recruit and it seems JP flat out can't. Seems to make sense. Sanders would be a slam dunk at DB coach, so why all the other names floating around? Just throwing some stuff at the wall here.

To say that college football had a play-off and will now have play-offs would be correct. If you prefer one to the other, that's your right. I am not in support of it, but that is totally up to you. I just get a bit peeved at the misuse of terminology to distract from the point. Not blaming you for that, either. ESPN ran a commercial for the "College Football Playoff" for 2014-15. It's been commonly used and incorrectly so. I feel it's distracting from the fact that it's nothing but a money-grab by ESPN under the guise of change towards common sense.

Regardless of how many teams should be the minimum for a playoff I'm going to say what we are all thinking.

 

Until the FBS level of College Football reaches 8 teams to crown a true NCAA national champion we won't be happy as college football fans.

 

On the selfish Husker side, the BCS is a much easier path to adding a national championship to our history and for that reason I will miss it.

 

Now, I get what your saying Dutch I really do. The term playoff is derived from two teams playing off. But look at a bracket and what is the final game usually called? The Championship right? Thats what the top game of the BCS was called, "The BCS Championship Game". You could falsely slap Conference standings around that game and claim the regular season is a playoff but that would be more smoke and mirrors by the aforementioned Bill Hancock and his cronies in the depths of hell, er, BCS headquarters. You said two teams play one game for a wild card spot in baseball, how does that prove me wrong? That proves me right. That wild card spot lands them a spot IN the Playoff.

 

Again, I can't reccomend this book enough. All should read to see how truly bastardized the bowls have become.

I, for one, am not happy with going to a playoff. I will be considerably less happy if it expands to 8 teams. Those numbers are arbitrary and will always leave someone out. The complaint about the BCS is that it's two teams picked by some dudes who talk about sports. Now it's going to be 4 teams picked by dudes who talk about sports. The committee is there, I know, but they can't just pull a team from left field and run with it. There are smart people on the committee, but they do have to stay within the "expected" choices. Otherwise ESPN and other sports networks will smear them like they smeared the BCS.

A championship game is part of a playoff. It can be the whole playoff or the conclusion of it. The Wildcard example works because two teams play for the title of NL/AL Wildcard. They play for a title. Granted, the reward for that title is further playoffs, but there are two teams that play for a title. Just like conference titles. You play one game for conference champion, then you still have a bowl game after that.

Really, the BCS paired the best teams more often than not. 2001 Oregon and Colorado would argue that, as would 2004 Auburn, but it really did put together the best teams for a title. 2007 was a complete mess through and through, but parity isn't the BCS's fault. Boston college was ranked #2 that year...Boston frickin' College.

I know, it was hard for me to watch too. I just love that the same people who will post in the Husker Prayer thread, " and cheer as the winners go by" then resume telling us how crappy Iowa is. Especially after they beat us, then bum rushed OUR sideline and grabbed the trophy off of OUR TURF.

 

I want to make it clear, this is more of a general statement towards all the people still saying Iowa sucks, not really directed at the post above about their locker room. The locker room comment seemed like more of a joke. I'm just amazed at all the people I talk football with here and elsewhere who still have the nerve to say Iowa sucks. It makes me laugh.

No fun allowed. You cant call out rivals. Ever.

If the Heisman keeps with the pattern of the last few years it will go to someone nobody expected.

Did someone say marginally talented quarterback?

Taylor loves to play against his away games too. That impresses voters.

All you are doing is playing with words, while ignoring the essence of the thing itself. We all know what a playoff is, it is multiple teams playing in order to reach quarter finals, semifinals and then the finals. In some cases this is subdivided further or to a lesser degree. However in general knowledge terms a playoff is not 2 teams playing in a final. It's a cute play on words and misdirected logic your using, but that's all it is.

All you are doing is spreading a misconception. Playoffs can exist with any number of teams but 1. Any post-season, championship-determining game, or series of games, is a playoff. The two best teams "play off" for a title. That's where the term originated. To say that I'm the one contorting it is completely off base. Fans may use the term to reference a specific style of postseason (same style, just bigger), but it means the same thing as it did initially. I've given a dictionary definition, outlined the logic I used (and you can too!), given hypothetical as well as real world examples. You can't just say I'm wrong and you're right because you feel like being right. "We all know what a playoff is" is not an argument. In fact, as you and several others have proven, it's absolutely untrue.

By the way I honestly am not trying to fight here. I think the BCS is a steaming pile of sacralidge to football. Its a terruble system Im happy to be rid of. The new playoff format is also going to be incredibly flawed but Ill hate on thay once weve crossed that bridge.

 

And never has anyone EVER referenced a conference title game as a playoff.

Much as I suspected (I'm referencing this post and the one prior to it, simply cutting down the quoteception), you base your entire argument on what other people are saying. Yet I'm so ridiculous for taking a look at it and seeing it for what it is. You refuse to respond to logic so I have nothing else to offer you.

I cant believe you got a plus one for that response.

This is how I feel about all of your posts in this thread. Your tally of +1s has greatly outnumbered your instances of making sense.