Blackshirts be gone!!!

You can't really compare College BBall to FBall, because there's about 115 teams or so playing D-1 ball, as where there are over 300 D-1 hoops teams. When there's that many teams, you need as many conference tournaments, with the big dance to whittle all that down.

I hate the BCS and we need something that doesn't suck. I'm perfectly ok with a championship tournament. You have to do something, so that you don't get stuck with 3 teams that are undefeated, and leaving one team out in the cold.

 
You can't really compare College BBall to FBall, because there's about 115 teams or so playing D-1 ball, as where there are over 300 D-1 hoops teams. When there's that many teams, you need as many conference tournaments, with the big dance to whittle all that down.
I hate the BCS and we need something that doesn't suck. I'm perfectly ok with a championship tournament. You have to do something, so that you don't get stuck with 3 teams that are undefeated, and leaving one team out in the cold.
Click to expand...
and my question to you is how many times have we had 3 undfeated teams come bowl time?

 
ok, that's not that likely, but what is more likely is, 3 one loss teams that are ranked 1-2-3....

Then what do you do? Go on who's loss was worst? Take into account who had the strongest schedule?

 
If it ends up that we have 3 or more undefeated teams this year, which there are right now, it's going to be a mess! :smokin

 
so why do you think the f-tards that came up with the BSCS are praying that before bowl season stars, there are only two undefeated teams or that have one loss...

 
ok, that's not that likely, but what is more likely is, 3 one loss teams that are ranked 1-2-3....
Then what do you do? Go on who's loss was worst? Take into account who had the strongest schedule?
Click to expand...
and I ask you again, how often does that happen?

 
not that often, but what i'm getting at is, I want a definitive national championship...

Not like last year when LSU and USC were co-champions so to speak, or when we shared it with Penn St in 94...

 
What if the season ends with one undefeated team and four one lose teams. Who gets to go on to play the undefeated team in the championship game. That is the senario that a playoff would fix. If we had an eight team playoff, there would be a teams that get screwed out of the eighth spot but those teams that get left out are not teams that are going to compete for the championship. A great example would be in 2001. Miami was undefeated and Nebraska, Oregon, and Colorado all had shots at playing in the championship game. Other teams that had that late season loss that would of competed in a tourney were Oklahoma, Michigan, Maryland, and Oregon State. It you guys are so concerned about who gets into the playoffs, it would be real easy to just use the same formula that the BCS uses, since you all love it so much. This way, every major conference is represented and we get to settle the championship like men. Not like pu&&y's that just talk and don't play the game.

 
I guarantee there would be just as much whining about the eighth spot as there is now about the BCS. And if there is one undefeated team, and 3 one loss teams, that's why we have the BCS, to chose who deserves it the most. If the other two teams are upset, I could not care less. If they would have won all their games, they wouldn't be in that position. With the BCS, you control your own destiny. There has yet to be a case where a deserving undefeated team has been shut out of the title game. But as you guys pointed out, that happended several times under the old system, most notabley Penn St. in 1994.

As far as all this 'we're men so we play on the field' BS, I'd just add that real men win all their games and don't need a back-door, second chance playoff to win the national championship.

 
Do you really believe we should have been playing for the title game in 2001? I mean seriously, we didn't even get to play for the Big 12 championship. When you're blown out, and I mean blown out you shouldn't be playing for a National Championship. Just like last year, OU got blown out by KState. They shouldn't have even been playing LSU.

How many years has the BCS been in affect? How many years have they changed the formula? Answer to the second question: every year. If it's so good, why do they continually have to change it? Everyone in life wants things to be fair. A playoff of the top 8 teams using the BCS formula if you will is the only way to make things fair. Not only that, it will answer a lot of questions. For example, Utah ends up as one of the best 8 teams. They play and get totally slaughtered. It answers the question of whether or not the conferences like the MAC and others should even be playing with the top tier teams. As it stands now, I don't know how you can eliminate them from a BCS bowl if they win out.

 
No I don't think that we deserved to play for the title in 2001. Yes we got blown out by a very good Colorado team (ranked #14 at the time) on the road in a rivalry game. So did Colorado deserve to play in the game? Well, they lost 2 games. I think 2 losses should disqualify you from the championship. One of those losses was at home to Fresno State. Well, did Oregon deserve it? Maybe. But they lost at home to a very poor, unranked Stanford team. So the only team that has a legitamate gripe in that season would be Oregon. But if they just would have taken care of business, and beaten a really bad Stanford team, they wouldn't have been in that position.

Miami deserved the champioship and they proved it by beating up on everyone in the regular season and beating up on us in the Rose Bowl. Forcing them to play in a 3 game tournament where they could be bounced in the first or second round by good teams with 2 losses doesn't seem fair. Why give the 2 loss teams a second chance at the championship? Explain to me how that doesn't devalue the regular season. As far as Utah, I have said before I don't think they'll win out. But if they do, they'll be in a BCS bowl, and like you said, we'll see if they deserve it.

 
Okay, here's how I see it. Take out all the early games some teams play. Take away one nonconference game. And maybe even take out the conference championship games. This will leave most teams with fewer games, but the champion will basically have the same amount of games as we have now. By having the same amount of games we have now, you pretty much have to go undefeated to become National Champ. If being undefeated is what it takes now, then nothing would change. I don't know why you're so concerned about getting bounced the first or second playoff game. If they were that good to begin with, they shouldn't be getting bounced. You yourself said that's what sets college football apart that you have to go through the season with 0-1 loss to win it all. Personally, I don't see what's changed.

We can go back through the years and name plenty of teams who got "shafted" by the way things are now. The only ones to maybe get shafted would be the 9th or 10th rated team. However, the odds of one of them winning it all really isn't that good.

IMO, the only ones who do not want a playoff system are either those who are money hungry or those who are filled with fear, fear that their team cannot win out in a playoff system. I'm not saying Florida wasn't the second best team in 1995, but come on. We totally blew them out. I would bet with a playoff schedule there would have been a lot better opponent for us to play.

 
We would have blown out anyone that year. Many around the country consider the '95 team to be the best college football team ever. There wasn't anyone else that was very impressive that year.

 
I think the players should don't deserve these damn things after this past game. They let up close over 500 yards of offense to the 108th ranked offense in the country.

And now ISU is in the drivers seat to KC

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top