Notre Dame Joe Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 Really don't accuse others of "convoluted" when you're drunk posting. We've heard all year how "they won it on the field" when you meant did better in the layoffs instead of the regular season. Now we find out there are at least 5 teams who could have put up a better fight than whatever we saw today. Playoffs cure nothing, just one method among many. Quote Link to comment
Mavric Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 The nfl also uses a computer so to speak. The playoffs follow a set of predetermined rules, even for the tie break. They just don't vote during the season. Quote Link to comment
Redux Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 All Ive gathered from the retorts is Notre Dame would be terrified to play USC twl.ice in the same season. No wonder they picked the Trojans over the Huskers to be their riva Quote Link to comment
Notre Dame Joe Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 All Ive gathered from the retorts is Notre Dame would be terrified to play USC twl.ice in the same season. No wonder they picked the Trojans over the Huskers to be their riva Huh? Quote Link to comment
Redux Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 All Ive gathered from the retorts is Notre Dame would be terrified to play USC twl.ice in the same season. No wonder they picked the Trojans over the Huskers to be their riva Huh? Lol okay that may have been me trying to stir the pot. But really whats wrong with rematches in the postseason, Nebraska has become quite accustomed to themnoger the last six years. It doesnt automaticaly mean Mulligan, it can also mean an instant classic just got a dose of double vision. As far as the USC over Nebraska thing, its my understanding back in the day ND had a choice between NU and USC. I really wish they wouldve snubbed the Trojans, I always felt and ND vs NU annual series would be a great rivalry. Quote Link to comment
Notre Dame Joe Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 All Ive gathered from the retorts is Notre Dame would be terrified to play USC twl.ice in the same season. No wonder they picked the Trojans over the Huskers to be their riva Huh? Lol okay that may have been me trying to stir the pot. But really whats wrong with rematches in the postseason, Mostly because the unaffiliated fans can skip the first one. Quote Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 All Ive gathered from the retorts is Notre Dame would be terrified to play USC twl.ice in the same season. No wonder they picked the Trojans over the Huskers to be their riva Huh? Lol okay that may have been me trying to stir the pot. But really whats wrong with rematches in the postseason, Mostly because the unaffiliated fans can skip the first one. How do you know it's the first one? Quote Link to comment
Redux Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 All Ive gathered from the retorts is Notre Dame would be terrified to play USC twl.ice in the same season. No wonder they picked the Trojans over the Huskers to be their riva Huh? Lol okay that may have been me trying to stir the pot. But really whats wrong with rematches in the postseason, Ummm they wont be announcing any bowl or playoff rematches until after the season so this makes no sense to me. Mostly because the unaffiliated fans can skip the first one. Quote Link to comment
Notre Dame Joe Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 We just had a Stanford-UCLA game with a guaranteed rematch the next week. I don't why we're debating the possibility of rematches when they've already happened. Didn't you guys get hosed one year by Oklahoma getting a bowl rematch? Quote Link to comment
Redux Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 We just had a Stanford-UCLA game with a guaranteed rematch the next week. I don't why we're debating the possibility of rematches when they've already happened. Didn't you guys get hosed one year by Oklahoma getting a bowl rematch? No we got hosed by losing to Oklahoma then having to face Washington in a bowl rematch. That was half on us for losing the Big 12 title game and half on Dan Beebe as a middle finger to us for leaving his conference. It sucked sure, the team didn't get up for it and we deserved to lose. It happens. We just played Georgia twice in a row now in back to back season ending bowl games. There was griping on both sides for sure but we came out on top this year. I understand what your getting at. Like Alabama playing LSU in the BCS title game......again. Once was enough for me that year. But if we had a 4 team playoff that year they wouldn't have been seeded together in a semifinal. And if they had been, great you eliminate one SEC team by having them face eachother. Rematches don't have to be a bad thing, if the game lived up to the hype the first go around. I'm betting if Notre Dame lost on a controversial call to USC to cost the Irish an undefeated season you would love nothing more than a shot to crack them upside the head and get revenge. I don't see it as a mulligan, I see it as 4 of the top deserving teams getting a shot at the National Championship and #3 not being left out like we've seen multiple times. Tradition is not lost here. But if you want to go on the greedy Husker fan in me, losing the BCS just cost us the easiest shot at a 6th National Championship, having a 4 team playoff just makes the road harder. But the overall product of College Football will be better for it. Quote Link to comment
Count 'Bility Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 We just had a Stanford-UCLA game with a guaranteed rematch the next week. I don't why we're debating the possibility of rematches when they've already happened. Didn't you guys get hosed one year by Oklahoma getting a bowl rematch? No we got hosed by losing to Oklahoma then having to face Washington in a bowl rematch. That was half on us for losing the Big 12 title game and half on Dan Beebe as a middle finger to us for leaving his conference. It sucked sure, the team didn't get up for it and we deserved to lose. It happens. 1978 I believe he's speaking of. Quote Link to comment
Redux Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Wasnt thinking that far back Quote Link to comment
StPaulHusker Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 So college football may be better off without the BCS, but is it better off with a new weekly poll conducted by the Football Writers of America Association and the National Football Foundation? It will be called the FWAA-NFF Grantland Rice Super 16. It will only vote for the top 16 teams. Thoughts? http://college-football.si.com/2014/02/25/fwaa-nff-grantland-rice-super-16-poll/?xid=nl_siextra Quote Link to comment
Redux Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Id still like to see the top 25 but really does it matter if your #18 and your last two opponents are a creampuff and a team that will throttle you? Either way wil work just fine in the end I suppose. Quote Link to comment
Redux Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Pros of the playoff: Teams #3 get to prove their worth instead of "settling" for a BCS bowl More football with more quality matchups Less "I think Team A beats Team B if they had played" The FBS no longer the ONLY tier of football NOT using playoff format Cons: People will complain about biased seeding Harder to win a championship The 8 or 16 team camps still wont be happy The Big12 and Notre Dame could get left out with no conference championship games Wait a tick, how did that last one slip to the cons section. You belong in the pros section little fella. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.