O please, There was a controversy every single year on who should be in the game, every single year. You know why? Because it was all opinions and those are like what? That's right, like as$%oles and we all have them. Not to mention that any system that picks by a regular season record, in any team sport in the world would get it's finalists wrong virtually every year compared to when those teams have to actually EARN the right to be in the championship by playing other top teams. And yes wins in January are much better then those in September since in January you would play the best of the best while only mostly scrubs in September.
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?
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.
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.
I'm sure everyone who played in the game does, maybe even those who attended the school at the time and watched it in the stadium, other then that most with titles or not think it's a farce and the tv ratings spoke volumes, which is the only reason we are getting these little playoffs, give it two years tops and the mocking of these championships you hear now will be ten fold.
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.
There is absolutely NOTHING that diminishes the regular season with a play off of 4 teams. If you move it to 8 team and make it 6 conference champions plus two wild cards then it even makes the regular season even MORE exciting. It creates an atmosphere where if you are in contention to win your conference, then you are in contention for an NC. That is huge and right now, most conference champions have absolutely no chance of an NC.
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.
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.devnet said:
