TCU fan here. I'll be wearing my red at Jerry's place on the 5th

[BlackShirt1340]

GO FROGS!!!! HUSKERS!

There, fixed it for ya :thumbs

 

[EbylHusker]

lol, because not getting a shot at the title game because you're not in a BCS conference is fair, right? lmfao

Any more fair than a non-BCS conference team (TCU) getting a nod over a BCS conference team (Cincy) to play in the BCS National Title Game?

Uh, nothing is more fair than having a playoff and letting the teams fight their way into the championship game. If that's not obvious then...well, sorry for you, lol.

However, that is also impractical. But practicality has nothing to do with this discussion. Fairness does.

BS! There is no fair way to do it. A playoff would not be fair because there would always be teams left out and teams winning titles that in the current system shouldn't be in. Sorry. You wanna NT then play for a big 6 school. You don't have to agree. Just don't act like a playoff solves everything.

Yeah, because my post says anything about it eliminating ALL unfairness. Oh wait, no it doesn't. Way to read.

 

[EbylHusker]

In the end, the fairest (note...fairest does not mean it eliminates all unfairness, mmkay?) system is a true playoff. By casting a net for however many teams you wanted to invite to the playoff, you're going to get the most deserving ones and then you'll let them play their way up to the title game. Most teams already do not have much incentive to schedule tough OOC games to start with, but the incentive would exist that if you are ranked #1 or #2 going into the playoff, your route to the final game would theoretically be the easiest (just like it is in most tournament setups).

But again, it's not practical when you take everything into account. But as I said, my point was never about the practicality of it, just the fairness factor.

 

[sd'sker]

What would be the incentive for BCS conferences to schedule a tough ooc schedule when non-BCS schools get to play a schedule full of teams that BCS conferences schedule as cupcakes?

what's the incentive now? in a playoff, the perennial powerhouses could lose one or two games and still end up in the top 8 and allowed to play in a playoff. i really do not know what your post was an argument for or against... but that is my thought.

Texas, Florida and Ohio State are all 12-0. Both Florida and Ohio State played 2 BCS conference schools in their occ schedule. Texas played 4 non-BCS schools. Who do you think will be going to the MNC game? This can, and has, happened. Ask Auburn about getting a do-over on their ooc scheduling. There's your incentive.

In the current state, teams from the Big 12 or SEC can go light on their power scheduling because you bank on the fact that your conference is going to be good. The Pac-10 and Big-10 have to work a little bit harder and the ACC and Big East need to schedule much tougher. This is a gamble that you have to call correctly several years out in most cases. If Texas had known that Utah would be good last year, do you think that they would have let them weasle out of their contract? Hell no. In fact, a win against Utah would have vaulted the Horns over ou for the Big 12 title and possibly the MNC. At the time of the deal, and reneg, Utah was a run-of-the-mill team. My point is that it also takes a little luck. A 2015 agreement with Florida looks like a good deal right now. But, if in 2015 Myer leaves and Florida sucks, it doesn't really have the desired affect on your SoS.

I disagree, I don't want a 2-loss team ever playing for the MNC when there are undefeated teams still out there.

even if they beat the undefeated team in a playoff? what i am saying is that UT could lose to OU and still get into a playoff, play a TCU like team, win and play their way back into the MNC. let the players decide who goes to the MNC on the field.

 

[HuskerNBigD]

What would be the incentive for BCS conferences to schedule a tough ooc schedule when non-BCS schools get to play a schedule full of teams that BCS conferences schedule as cupcakes?

what's the incentive now? in a playoff, the perennial powerhouses could lose one or two games and still end up in the top 8 and allowed to play in a playoff. i really do not know what your post was an argument for or against... but that is my thought.

So your gonna say that the 10th ranked team is less deserving than the 8th ranked team, or lets look at it this way, Ohio State is ranked 8th and lost to the 18th ranked team in the nation and plays in the BIG 10 which would be less competitive than the BIG 12 , however LSU who lost to very tough SEC teams and the fluke against Ole Miss would miss your playoffs because they arent ranked in the top 8. You see your always going to have teams complaining because after the top 3 or 4 your gonna have teams that are sitting at home with equal records, so a playoff solves nothing.

What you should have is a playoff from the BCS bowls the winners of each continue on, so the winner of the rose bowl play the fiesta bowl and the orange and sugar play, then work your way down from there or if teams are left undefeated have a playoff with them at the end of the year.

 

[sd'sker]

What would be the incentive for BCS conferences to schedule a tough ooc schedule when non-BCS schools get to play a schedule full of teams that BCS conferences schedule as cupcakes?

what's the incentive now? in a playoff, the perennial powerhouses could lose one or two games and still end up in the top 8 and allowed to play in a playoff. i really do not know what your post was an argument for or against... but that is my thought.

So your gonna say that the 10th ranked team is less deserving than the 8th ranked team, or lets look at it this way, Ohio State is ranked 8th and lost to the 18th ranked team in the nation and plays in the BIG 10 which would be less competitive than the BIG 12 , however LSU who lost to very tough SEC teams and the fluke against Ole Miss would miss your playoffs because they arent ranked in the top 8. You see your always going to have teams complaining because after the top 3 or 4 your gonna have teams that are sitting at home with equal records, so a playoff solves nothing.

What you should have is a playoff from the BCS bowls the winners of each continue on, so the winner of the rose bowl play the fiesta bowl and the orange and sugar play, then work your way down from there or if teams are left undefeated have a playoff with them at the end of the year.

I would say an argument between 10th-8th is irrelevant compared to an argument between who should be 2nd-4th. In any given year there are probably 4-6 teams that have a legitimate chance of winning the national championship, 7-8 would be wild card teams that are lucky to be there and probably do not have a real chance. The team who is 9th and getting left out, well they should have done more, the team who is 3rd and left out, well they still deserve a shot, i would say. why i think the 8 team playoff is so great is because it allows for a greater margin of error and the top 6 teams are the most deserving and would get their chance. are you saying getting left out at 9 is as bad as getting left out at 3? we have had years with three deserving teams, that should stop, and usually there are 5-6 deserving teams by the end of the year (between strength of schedule, going undefeated, and heating up at the end of the season and looking better than anyone else, but having a pesky early season loss).

 

[sd'sker]

basically, if you can not get into the top 9, you have no excuses in an 8 team playoff.

 

[In the Deed the Glory]

What would be the incentive for BCS conferences to schedule a tough ooc schedule when non-BCS schools get to play a schedule full of teams that BCS conferences schedule as cupcakes?

what's the incentive now? in a playoff, the perennial powerhouses could lose one or two games and still end up in the top 8 and allowed to play in a playoff. i really do not know what your post was an argument for or against... but that is my thought.

Texas, Florida and Ohio State are all 12-0. Both Florida and Ohio State played 2 BCS conference schools in their occ schedule. Texas played 4 non-BCS schools. Who do you think will be going to the MNC game? This can, and has, happened. Ask Auburn about getting a do-over on their ooc scheduling. There's your incentive.

In the current state, teams from the Big 12 or SEC can go light on their power scheduling because you bank on the fact that your conference is going to be good. The Pac-10 and Big-10 have to work a little bit harder and the ACC and Big East need to schedule much tougher. This is a gamble that you have to call correctly several years out in most cases. If Texas had known that Utah would be good last year, do you think that they would have let them weasle out of their contract? Hell no. In fact, a win against Utah would have vaulted the Horns over ou for the Big 12 title and possibly the MNC. At the time of the deal, and reneg, Utah was a run-of-the-mill team. My point is that it also takes a little luck. A 2015 agreement with Florida looks like a good deal right now. But, if in 2015 Myer leaves and Florida sucks, it doesn't really have the desired affect on your SoS.

I disagree, I don't want a 2-loss team ever playing for the MNC when there are undefeated teams still out there.

even if they beat the undefeated team in a playoff? what i am saying is that UT could lose to OU and still get into a playoff, play a TCU like team, win and play their way back into the MNC. let the players decide who goes to the MNC on the field.

:yeah

By that rationale the Patriots should have won the Super Bowl two years ago. I mean why would an undefeated team play a team with 4 losses in a playoff. The undefeated team should just play another team with little to no losses.....

 

[Yellowjacketfan]

I think the winner of the ACCCG is projected to play TCU in the Orange Bowl by some 'experts'. We might get to know each other very well over the next month if GT does not lay another egg this weekend.... but yes hopefully Neb wins and TCU goes to the NC. That would be good on all levels.

 

[spankytoes]

What would be the incentive for BCS conferences to schedule a tough ooc schedule when non-BCS schools get to play a schedule full of teams that BCS conferences schedule as cupcakes?

what's the incentive now? in a playoff, the perennial powerhouses could lose one or two games and still end up in the top 8 and allowed to play in a playoff. i really do not know what your post was an argument for or against... but that is my thought.

Texas, Florida and Ohio State are all 12-0. Both Florida and Ohio State played 2 BCS conference schools in their occ schedule. Texas played 4 non-BCS schools. Who do you think will be going to the MNC game? This can, and has, happened. Ask Auburn about getting a do-over on their ooc scheduling. There's your incentive.

In the current state, teams from the Big 12 or SEC can go light on their power scheduling because you bank on the fact that your conference is going to be good. The Pac-10 and Big-10 have to work a little bit harder and the ACC and Big East need to schedule much tougher. This is a gamble that you have to call correctly several years out in most cases. If Texas had known that Utah would be good last year, do you think that they would have let them weasle out of their contract? Hell no. In fact, a win against Utah would have vaulted the Horns over ou for the Big 12 title and possibly the MNC. At the time of the deal, and reneg, Utah was a run-of-the-mill team. My point is that it also takes a little luck. A 2015 agreement with Florida looks like a good deal right now. But, if in 2015 Myer leaves and Florida sucks, it doesn't really have the desired affect on your SoS.

I disagree, I don't want a 2-loss team ever playing for the MNC when there are undefeated teams still out there.

even if they beat the undefeated team in a playoff? what i am saying is that UT could lose to OU and still get into a playoff, play a TCU like team, win and play their way back into the MNC. let the players decide who goes to the MNC on the field.

They shouldn't have the opportunity to even play the undefeated team. You lose and you pay the consequences. Otherwise, you are rendering the regular season completely moot. If Texas loses to ou, we have to scoreboard watch to see how our post season will play out. I'm fine with that. We lost. It isn't everyone gets a trophy day. If you are one of the best teams, you prove it on the field.

Who decides the rankings of the teams? Because I can guarantee you that a 1-loss Florida would be ranked higher than an undefeated Boise St. this season. What happens when NU wins 11 straight, loses their last game to #1 ranked Texas and falls behind an ou team that lost to Baylor in their conference opener? How do we compensate for the timing of the loss factoring into the rankings? This is essentially what would have happened with USC after they lost to a terrible Washington team in week 3 and dropped from #3 to #12 and worked their way up to #4 before losing again. Generally, the earlier you lose the better off you are. However, in most cases, your hardest games are further along in the schedule. Along this note, who gets to decide what undefeated to 2-loss teams are worthy of seeding? Is it really better to lose 1 game to Colorado St. than it is to lose 2 games to Texas and Ohio St.?

I don't see how this solves the problem.

 

[HuskerNBigD]

basically, if you can not get into the top 9, you have no excuses in an 8 team playoff.

Are you kidding me.... because the 8th ranked team is so much better than the 9th ranked team.....especailly with biased rankings towards the SEC teams, for example youd be perfectly fine if Nebraska was ranked 9th behind 3 SEC teams....you would honestly say they dont deserve to be in the playoff especially if they were 10-2 losing in a conference championship game..... Ill call bullsh#t on that one.

 

[knapplc]

basically, if you can not get into the top 9, you have no excuses in an 8 team playoff.

Are you kidding me.... because the 8th ranked team is so much better than the 9th ranked team.....especailly with biased rankings towards the SEC teams, for example youd be perfectly fine if Nebraska was ranked 9th behind 3 SEC teams....you would honestly say they dont deserve to be in the playoff especially if they were 10-2 losing in a conference championship game..... Ill call bullsh#t on that one.

You're missing the point. What he's saying, and correctly saying, is that the argument for the #9 team getting "screwed" by the #8 team is weaker than the argument for the #3 team getting screwed by the #2 team. And it's a rock-solid argument.

 

[sd'sker]

basically, if you can not get into the top 9, you have no excuses in an 8 team playoff.

Are you kidding me.... because the 8th ranked team is so much better than the 9th ranked team.....especailly with biased rankings towards the SEC teams, for example youd be perfectly fine if Nebraska was ranked 9th behind 3 SEC teams....you would honestly say they dont deserve to be in the playoff especially if they were 10-2 losing in a conference championship game..... Ill call bullsh#t on that one.

this is crazy, a 9th ranked NU does not stand a chance to win it, so no i would not care. are you saying that you are fine with a 3rd loss NU? and i do not even know what spankytoes is talking about, i think he is thinking of a 4 team playoff. everyone needs to take a logic class and understand that your arguments against a playoff system are the same arguments, but much stronger, against the BCS.

if 9 feels like they get left out, who cares, there are 8 spots to play into and you did not make it. if 3 feels left out, as they often do now, they may be just as deserving or more deserving than 1-2.

the season is too long to allow one loss to ruin it for a team. the top 8 teams are there for various reasons...SOS, finishing strong, going undefeated, and they deserve a playoff.

the 8th team may or not be so much better than the 9th team, but the 3rd team is so much better than the 2nd team???

spankytoes says, you lose you pay the consequences, well i say 'you win, why should you still pay the consequences.' the regular season would be more exciting because a team would not be out of the race because of one early loss, or just one loss.

and you keep talking about undefeated teams, what about when 5-6 teams all have one loss. like OU loses to TTU, TTU loses to UT, and UT loses to OU...?

the top two teams is a much more contentious argument then the top 8 teams, especially when, for all practical matters, only the top 4-5 teams really have a chance.

 

[HuskerNBigD]

basically, if you can not get into the top 9, you have no excuses in an 8 team playoff.

Are you kidding me.... because the 8th ranked team is so much better than the 9th ranked team.....especailly with biased rankings towards the SEC teams, for example youd be perfectly fine if Nebraska was ranked 9th behind 3 SEC teams....you would honestly say they dont deserve to be in the playoff especially if they were 10-2 losing in a conference championship game..... Ill call bullsh#t on that one.

this is crazy, a 9th ranked NU does not stand a chance to win it, so no i would not care. are you saying that you are fine with a 3rd loss NU? and i do not even know what spankytoes is talking about, i think he is thinking of a 4 team playoff. everyone needs to take a logic class and understand that your arguments against a playoff system are the same arguments, but much stronger, against the BCS.

if 9 feels like they get left out, who cares, there are 8 spots to play into and you did not make it. if 3 feels left out, as they often do now, they may be just as deserving or more deserving than 1-2.

the season is too long to allow one loss to ruin it for a team. the top 8 teams are there for various reasons...SOS, finishing strong, going undefeated, and they deserve a playoff.

the 8th team may or not be so much better than the 9th team, but the 3rd team is so much better than the 2nd team???

spankytoes says, you lose you pay the consequences, well i say 'you win, why should you still pay the consequences.' the regular season would be more exciting because a team would not be out of the race because of one early loss, or just one loss.

and you keep talking about undefeated teams, what about when 5-6 teams all have one loss. like OU loses to TTU, TTU loses to UT, and UT loses to OU...?

the top two teams is a much more contentious argument then the top 8 teams, especially when, for all practical matters, only the top 4-5 teams really have a chance.

No i was speaking theoretically and I agree with you and knapplc that there needs to be an improvement but not a playoff more so a +1 system for those teams remaining undefeated after their BCS games