Redux Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment
dutch91701 Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment
Michiganball Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 People realize there's already a playoff, right? It's two teams that play-off for the championship. Can't wait til 2020 when we get to fill out our NCAA Football 64 team bracket picks and just say f#*k it and pay players. Two teams is not a playoff, its a bowl, I dont care what drivel Bill Hancock spewed out as "fact". Two teams, in an artificially created championship game, is a playoff. I have never read anything by Bill Hancock, so I know not of which you speak. Bowl games have tie-ins, such as the Rose Bowl being B1G and PAC #, a playoff is seeded teams playing for a title. The BCS is #1 vs #2. Seeded. It's simple logic. If you can't follow that, then perhaps I'm not the one spewing drivel.... Please feel free to link to anyone else who shares this sentiment. 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. 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. Also playoffs eliminate multiple opponents until there are only two standing for the finals. 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. Quote Link to comment
dutch91701 Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 Who gives a flying rip? The BCS, no matter what form, sucked and was one of the dumbest ways of doing it. It ranked right up there with just having a bunch of random bowls and then allowing a bunch of people's opinion to crown the champion. Like I said, even if the BCS has been a "playoff", it sucked. So, now let's move on in a slow process of attempting to bring college football somewhere close to as respectable as other sports that crown their champions on the field instead of in the opinions of a bunch of people who have no accountability nor real clue what they are doing. Quote Link to comment
dutch91701 Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment
mrandyk Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 The BCS may have been a poor system, but it was better than what was in place before and was likely just as effective as a 4-team playoff with the field chosen by selection committee instead of a specific criteria, such as the 4 highest ranked conference champions. Quote Link to comment
Redux Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment
dutch91701 Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 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. 1 Quote Link to comment
TGHusker Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 A 8 game playoff would be my wish. 6 Champs from Big 10, Big 12, SEC, Pac 12, ACC, & Mtn West - 2 at large from other conferences 1st - if none found in top 15 then the 2 highest ranked teams from the 6 conferences who were not the conf champ. Those 2 not coming from the same conference. (Thus 2 max from a single conf.) ESPN propaganda gets two many SEC teams voted into the top 10. Quote Link to comment
dutch91701 Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment
Redux Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 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. The three outfits that are quietly reaping the rewards: ESPN BCS SEC ESPN will no doubt earn MILLIONS broadcasting this new concept SEC commish essentially came up with the concept and will undoubtedly send two teams in if "ranked" high enough BCS execs are not out of jobs. They simply have a new master. One that just got more powerful. Quote Link to comment
Michiganball Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 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. 1 Quote Link to comment
mrandyk Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 If they have to go with a selection committee instead of a set criteria for determining participants, I dearly hope they do a far better job than their FCS playoff selection committee. The field they chose this year was pathetic. Quote Link to comment
Redux Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Unless 4 conference champions get selected Im not going to be impressed. Yes one conference from the major 5 gets snubbed in hat scenario but it still beats 2 champions getting snubbed in favor of a second SEC team. 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.