Stop with the college football playoff whining...

Search

I think I want my money back!
Joined
Mar 29, 2005
Messages
41,267
Tokens
I understand most of the points made. Especially what Box was saying about 2012 at the earliest...but there is no reason why the plus one model shouldn't be implemented. I know people will say that would lead to a full blown playoff, but people also said the BCS wouldn't last and somehow it has. I think we deserve to see a semifinal that still consists of the current bowl system with the winners meeting in a "true" championship game.
 

New member
Joined
Mar 2, 2006
Messages
17,562
Tokens
you are correct!!!!! basketball and football players are athletes-students at a rate of 75-80% at least.

when these teams go to hawaii for the preseason hoop tournament and are gone for a week, i don't remember coll presidents saying they can't go because of their school work.

my kid plays college hoops and was gone for 3 days and 4 days on road trips. no tutor because they are cutting back on cost.

my nephew plays D1 fb and says more than half the team has grade problems. he said coaches would tell them to go to class and to study hall and don't cause any problems and your grades will take care of themselves.

would love to see the GPA of the memphis hoop team.

these kids are not in college for their brains, far from it.

these bowl games or a playoff system has nothing to do with the kids or their school work, it's all about $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


You summarized what most universities are afraid to admit.
 

Woah, woah, Daddy's wrong, Mommy's right.
Joined
Feb 25, 2006
Messages
7,977
Tokens
these bowl games or a playoff system has nothing to do with the kids or their school work, it's all about $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

that is what confounds me. It would seem to me that a playoff would rake in cash in piles, far more than the bowl system. The BCS has all but destroyed the bowls, even the big ones. Neutrals don't care about anything but the championship game and most of the lesser bowls lose money hand over fist, often shutting up shop after a few years. 2/3 of these games are shitty games between 8-4, 7-5 and 6-6 teams anyway. It's all currently set up so that only one bowl matters, not like it was 15/20 years ago where there were 2 sometimes 3 bowl games that had NC implications.

The 15 games in a 16 team playoff would almost all be must see TV and certainly once you get to the final 8 teams.

OU/Troy
UF/Buffalo
Texas/ECU
Bama/VTU
USC/Cincy
Utah/TCU
TT/Ohio St
PSU/Boise
 

New member
Joined
Sep 24, 2007
Messages
3,819
Tokens
its 100% about the money...As much as Id love to see a playoff its just not gonna happen (I dont think)

wayyyyyy too much money in the bowls...especially the big ones...unless they tie all that money into a playoff then we will live and die with the bcs
 

Official Rx music critic and beer snob
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
25,128
Tokens
Summed it up nicely Lapdance. Most coaches also get bonuses for winning Bowls, BCS appearances, and not graduation rates.
 

New member
Joined
Dec 9, 2006
Messages
4,668
Tokens
that is what confounds me. It would seem to me that a playoff would rake in cash in piles, far more than the bowl system. The BCS has all but destroyed the bowls, even the big ones. Neutrals don't care about anything but the championship game and most of the lesser bowls lose money hand over fist, often shutting up shop after a few years. 2/3 of these games are shitty games between 8-4, 7-5 and 6-6 teams anyway. It's all currently set up so that only one bowl matters, not like it was 15/20 years ago where there were 2 sometimes 3 bowl games that had NC implications.

The 15 games in a 16 team playoff would almost all be must see TV and certainly once you get to the final 8 teams.

OU/Troy
UF/Buffalo
Texas/ECU
Bama/VTU
USC/Cincy
Utah/TCU
TT/Ohio St
PSU/Boise

theres only one reason why ohio state was picked.....because they bring fans and fans = $$$$$$$$. no other reason for ohio st to be one of the top 8 teams.
 

UF. Champion U.
Joined
Nov 2, 2004
Messages
12,281
Tokens
First off, what? Thats your reply? You make an excuse for your abslutley absurd assertion that 7-8 players will be drafted off of a great college football team? it was 3am and therefore you don't need to make any sense? i see. There are years when 10 players get drafted off of a single team, much less off of their entire roster.



tebow
harvin
moody
rainey
dunlap
hayden
henderson
ingram
spikes
jenkins

There are 10 and that took me about 4 seconds. I could go on. I don't think i need to. Thanks.

Looking at your reply I see where we are misunderstanding each other, and that is I am talking about 6 to 7 players annually for teams like FL and OK. I realize looking back at my post that I said on a roster of 60, but I wasn't counting guys that are freshmen. I was talking draft eligible players, so I should have worded that differently. So yes, Drill Sergeant, I fucked up at 3am.

If you look at the Gators for example, from their title team in 2006 they have 7 guys on active rosters in the NFL. 2007 they had 2. This year they will probably have 5 be full time players in the NFL to where they don't need to worry about final exams and getting their degrees.

You make about $90K a year being a practice squad player and the average lifespan of that type of player is 3 years. Hardly enough to live on without having your degree and taking school seriously.

The other thing I will say is your ability to evaluate talent is nothing short of dogshit.

If you think Chris Rainey, who is 5'8" and weighs 170 pounds soaking wet, will have a serious NFL career, you can just quit gambling right now. Moody couldn't cut it at USC, transferred like a bitch because he couldnt handle competition, came to UF and is again buried on the depth chart. Not behind some seniors that have earned their due. But freshmen. His attitude and work ethic are horrible and he plays in an unconventional spread attack splitting carries 4 ways and is typically delegated to 4th Q mop up duty.

Henderson? Corey Henderson? He hasnt played a snap. Harvin and Ingram are tweeners. Not sure what position you think Harvin will play, but he is a slot receiver, can't stay healthy, and isnt big enough to be a #1 WR. Ingram too big for WR, too small for TE, can't block very well. Not sure where you think Tebow will be playing. Etc.

Nevermind teams like Vanderbilt, NC State, Washington, Boise State, Northwestern and on and on and on who probably average 2-3 guys at best per year that move on to have serious NFL careers.

If you read my post, this isnt about just being drafted, but about PLAYING in the NFL, being on the active roster and getting the good pay day so that your final exams mean nothing to you. That really means top 3 rounds.

I have plenty of friends who were bonus babies and are in the Minor League System, signed for $1 million dollars, and they are almost out of money in 6 years.

The average 4th round pick gets around $600,000 in the NFL. That's nothing.

They have to make the active NFL roster and get that pay day and keep off the practice squad or they make $90K just like any other guy out there. If they dont have their degrees and those final exams fuck up their degrees, they go out into the real world after they get released from the practice squad with no job experience and $20K in the bank the way these guys spend money.

As loaded as the Gators are, they have 3 players this year projected to go in the top 3 rounds: Harvin, Spikes, Murphy.

BC, FSU, Penn State, etc etc have 1 player projected to go in the top 3 rounds. Texas, Texas Tech, Virginia Tech, etc have 2-3 players projected to go top 3 rounds. If you take the top 2 teams from each conference and look at their draft picks that will be top 3 rounders, you will get an average of a little less than 2 players per team per year, or about 7 to 8 players per TOTAL roster of all players that will have serious NFL careers, drafted in the top 3 rounds, get a good bonus, and that is assuming all of them arent busts.

For every guy that surprises and makes the active roster as a 6th rounder, I will show you a top 3 rounder that is a bust.

At the end of the day, that is not what this thread is about.

Thanks.
 
Last edited:

UF. Champion U.
Joined
Nov 2, 2004
Messages
12,281
Tokens
I guarantee you the "student athlete" are the last ones considered. If they were considered, there would be no weeknight games. The only ones who understand are the Ivy League and Bob Knight, and I hate Knight.


And as I listed, I put it as reason #4 out of 4 reasons. It is still definitely considered as cynical as you want to be about it nonetheless.
 

UF. Champion U.
Joined
Nov 2, 2004
Messages
12,281
Tokens
There are 10 guys on OU's offense that will get drafted.

You think it is "absolutely ridiculous that there are some teams out there that no matter what they do, they can not play for a national title" yet you are against the only reasonable solution for that problem. How do you reconcile that?

An 8-team playoff is not the only reasonable solution for the problem. You can do some kind of mandatory scheduling, you can have a 4 team playoff where you take the top 3 rated teams in the BCS and the best "at large" team from the smaller "non-BCS" conferences. There are 100 ways to skin a cat. It doesnt have to be the same in every sport. Just have to think outside the box to the point where you dont effect the regular season.

The system needs to be tweaked. No doubt.


Don't the benefits of diminishing the regular season some far outweigh the detriments? I agree with EGD that if you have a playoff structure like 1AA, II and III (16 teams) you will have better and more quality non-conference games. If a team isn't concerned with being knocked out of contention by playing Ohio St, texas, OU, whoever (or even quality non-BCS teams like Boise and Utah who have impossible times scheduling good BCS teams and can't get one to come to their place if their life depended on it), they will play those teams. Win your conference and that lose means little, now, you are f*ed, as UT and OSU who lost to each other in consecutive years.

You are ruining the regular season already. No loss should mean little. Every loss should be potentially catastrophic. THAT IS A BIG PART OF WHY COLLEGE FOOTBALL IS SO SPECIAL.

How about the benefit of UW not being left ass out when they beat Miami, who in turn was also ass out even though they beat FSU, or 13-0 Auburn not being left out, or 11-1 USC the year before that, or Pac 10 champion 11-1 Oregon at the expense of a team who didn't win their division (Nebraska) or UT this year, or PSU this year, or USC, or Utah, Boise, need I go on?

The BCS needs to be tweaked.

Regardless, the regular season wouldn't be diminished much at all. If a team wants to put all their eggs in the conference title basket, so be it, make their non-cons meaningless.

Maybe Im not following what you are saying, but you are clearly conflicting yourself - unless I am missing the point.

16 teams, 11 conference winners and 5 at larges.

Jesus H this is terrifying to me. 5 at larges? You will have 3-loss Ohio State and 3-loss LSU getting in every year. If you didnt like out of conference match ups now, imagine what will happen once you tell every team that their out of conference games are essentially meaningless.

Hey guys, don't worry about losing 2 or 3 games every year, you still have a chance to play for all the marbles. YAY.

The problem people dont understand is that there are 119 teams in NCAA Football. There are only 30 something in MLB or NFL or NBA, etc. You are always going to have a logjam of teams with the same record. You're always going to have 12 1-loss teams, or 12 2-loss teams, or 12 3 -loss teams. You are always going to get to the end of the rainbow and say, shit, how do we determine who gets in at #16. Look at all of these 2 loss teams staking their claim. And you know Ohio State has dominated everyone outside of their 3 losses. They are better than a lot of these two loss teams. The regular season will be an absolute joke. Right now, I dont miss a single play of any Gator game, because the whole season can change. But if I know they can lose 2 games every year and still get in, I'm not gonna sit home and watch the games every Saturday. I'll call someone up and say "Hey man I had to go grocery shopping, did the Gators win? No? Ah man, ok well we can only lose 1 more."


Generally speaking the first team left out of the tournament is ranked 12th or 13th and has 3 losses. This year the first team out is Oklahoma St by BCS rankings. That means that the regular season would be so meaningless that OSU's loss to OU, Mizzou's lose to KU and their subsequent loss to OU kept them out of the tournament, it also meant that PSU had to beat MSU in the final week of the season to assure they were in, lose and they might well have fallen out, it also meant Oregon St's loss to Oregon knocked them out (and gave life to TCU, otherwise USC would have been an at large). would it diminish certain games, sure, but it is a gross mis-characterization to say it would turn into the NFL or NCAA.

And USC's loss to Oregon State was absolutely meaningless. Oregon State didnt knock USC out of the title hunt. Just gave them a loss. No biggie. USC can actually take another loss and still make it into the tournament. Where's the fun in that? Just like every other sport. No more storming the field anymore when you knock a team out of the title hunt. No more sell outs and rabid fans going nuts over showdowns vs. #1 ranked teams. Oh you beat #1? That's cute. They fell to #8. They'll still make the playoffs by a mile. They werent motivated for the game, they knew they were going to make the tournament anyway. Oh 3-loss Ohio State voted in because of media bias beat undefeated #1 Oklahoma in the 1st round? What was the purpose of the regular season if all they had to do was sneak into the tournament and knock someone off who had won all of their games all year?

Where will the constant bickering between fans each week go? 16 teams? There is no mystery about who will make the tournament. Everyone will just finish out their regular season. Each game carrying much less importance than what it used to.

And answering your #2, how about March friggin Madness? Which this would surpass in a heartbeat. Every secretary and receptionist in the country is in a March Madness pool.

Secretaries arent passionate about it. They dont even know who they are picking. They are just filling out a bracket with teams with cute school names. They dont care who wins or loses deep down. There is no real passion there. Just artificial.

AGAIN, these people need March Madness brackets to make the games interesting. Why cant they just sit back and watch without having to gamble on it in some fashion? BC nobody cares. 64 fuckin teams make the tournament. Wake me up when it's the final four.

There is no greater debating, and more passionate fans than in college football. No regular season means more.

People are so brainwashed, and so unimaginitive to see that the regular season is the playoffs.

Just need a final 4 format and a way for any at large team to get in.
 
Last edited:

Woah, woah, Daddy's wrong, Mommy's right.
Joined
Feb 25, 2006
Messages
7,977
Tokens
The regular season wouldn't be ruined, you are exaggerating that greatly. I freely admit it would be diminished to a level, but I am willing to accept diminishing the REGULAR season and believe the benefits of having a real champion, determined on the field, far outweigh the negatives of giving USC a mulligan. A slightly diminished regular season to me is a small price to pay for giving teams like Utah, Boise, Hawaii and the other 60 teams who essentially play for scraps a realistic chance to prove themselves. By saying that it won't be diminished much I mean that these games are still vitally important, they won't all be life and death, but they will be the difference between a 1 or 2 seed and a 10 seed. HUGE meaning between playing Buffalo or Texas Tech in the first round. As I listed above, those late season games were win and in games for almost every team. It will be diminished, but not ruined.

There is no 3 loss teams in a 16 team playoff this season. You want a game meaning something, BYU/Utah was do or die for both, it meant far less without a playoff than it would with it. Would you rather be debating whether TCU is more deserving than Oklahoma State or the UT/OU fiasco, or USC being ass out, or any other of the ones listed above. What this system does is make the regular season a farce, it promotes scheduling crap (see TT), it says to half the teams "thanks for playing, but we aren't going to take you seriously no matter what you do. Then, when you go undefeated we will diminish that by saying you didn't play anyone. Then, when you call a big school to play a "real" game, they won't play you b/c they can't risk losing to a non-BCS school", it makes teams like Oklahoma (and that is my team) look for the perfect teams to schedule non-con, ones that will boost their SOS while at the same time having no real chance to beat them. Does every game mean something? No, it doesn't, every game played by OU, UT, UF, USC, etc., means everything. Games played by Utah, Boise St mean nothing. With a playoff, Utah's games mean something, Boise's do, perhaps every game by OU, UT, UF, USC won't, but every game by Oregon St, Texas Tech, Missouri, Oklahoma St, they will all mean something. right now, those teams have to be perfect to get a look from anyone. Even they're not on a balance with other teams in their conference. Look how quickly TT was dismissed by everyone in the OU/UT debate. The opportunities aren't level for every team, this would level them.

The only reason your girlfriend is passionate is b/c she likes UF, if this were UW, FSU and Miami she wouldn't give a shit. her fanatical interest lies in the team itself, not the controversy. March Madness is perfect for casual fans, they don't go nuts over it, but they are interested, they fill out their brackets, they follow the brackets even if they don't know shit.

The inherent problem I have in accepting that the regular season is the playoffs is that it is so inherently unbalanced and elitist in providing opportunities for teams to compete. The regular season is an old boys network. If your name is Oklahoma, Texas, Florida, Alabama, LSU or Ohio St, you are granted entry. If your name is Washington, Oregon, Utah, Boise St (and I'm not contending the latter two are as good as the formerly named teams), Auburn, USC, you are playing by different rules. OU, UT, UF, Bama, LSU, OSU can lose a game and still play for NCs. Utah, Boise, hell, even Auburn can go undefeated and still have no chance. USC can't lose a game (twice in 6 years now) and be in the same discussion as the Big 12 and SEC teams. UW beat UM, UM beat FSU yet FSU plays OU in 2000. How is the regular season a playoff when you don't respect those results? How is it a playoff when teams go undefeated and their ceiling is 6th or 8th?

I love college football, more than CBK and more than the pro sports and I am tense as all hell watching OU games. I loved the SEC title game with everything on the line, Oregon St upsetting USC, TT upsetting UT, Iowa/PSU, etc., but in the end I can't get over the inherent biases and fact that when you get right down to it, only 15-18 teams annually have a chance at an NC and even amongst those teams, certain teams have significantly more difficult criteria to get there.
 

The Great Govenor of California
Joined
Feb 21, 2001
Messages
15,972
Tokens
OF course Boxsalyers likes the current systeym it guarntees an SEC team every year.
 

UF. Champion U.
Joined
Nov 2, 2004
Messages
12,281
Tokens
The regular season wouldn't be ruined, you are exaggerating that greatly. I freely admit it would be diminished to a level, but I am willing to accept diminishing the REGULAR season and believe the benefits of having a real champion, determined on the field, far outweigh the negatives of giving USC a mulligan. A slightly diminished regular season to me is a small price to pay for giving teams like Utah, Boise, Hawaii and the other 60 teams who essentially play for scraps a realistic chance to prove themselves. By saying that it won't be diminished much I mean that these games are still vitally important, they won't all be life and death, but they will be the difference between a 1 or 2 seed and a 10 seed. HUGE meaning between playing Buffalo or Texas Tech in the first round. As I listed above, those late season games were win and in games for almost every team. It will be diminished, but not ruined.

There is no 3 loss teams in a 16 team playoff this season. You want a game meaning something, BYU/Utah was do or die for both, it meant far less without a playoff than it would with it. Would you rather be debating whether TCU is more deserving than Oklahoma State or the UT/OU fiasco, or USC being ass out, or any other of the ones listed above. What this system does is make the regular season a farce, it promotes scheduling crap (see TT), it says to half the teams "thanks for playing, but we aren't going to take you seriously no matter what you do. Then, when you go undefeated we will diminish that by saying you didn't play anyone. Then, when you call a big school to play a "real" game, they won't play you b/c they can't risk losing to a non-BCS school", it makes teams like Oklahoma (and that is my team) look for the perfect teams to schedule non-con, ones that will boost their SOS while at the same time having no real chance to beat them. Does every game mean something? No, it doesn't, every game played by OU, UT, UF, USC, etc., means everything. Games played by Utah, Boise St mean nothing. With a playoff, Utah's games mean something, Boise's do, perhaps every game by OU, UT, UF, USC won't, but every game by Oregon St, Texas Tech, Missouri, Oklahoma St, they will all mean something. right now, those teams have to be perfect to get a look from anyone. Even they're not on a balance with other teams in their conference. Look how quickly TT was dismissed by everyone in the OU/UT debate. The opportunities aren't level for every team, this would level them.

The only reason your girlfriend is passionate is b/c she likes UF, if this were UW, FSU and Miami she wouldn't give a shit. her fanatical interest lies in the team itself, not the controversy. March Madness is perfect for casual fans, they don't go nuts over it, but they are interested, they fill out their brackets, they follow the brackets even if they don't know shit.

The inherent problem I have in accepting that the regular season is the playoffs is that it is so inherently unbalanced and elitist in providing opportunities for teams to compete. The regular season is an old boys network. If your name is Oklahoma, Texas, Florida, Alabama, LSU or Ohio St, you are granted entry. If your name is Washington, Oregon, Utah, Boise St (and I'm not contending the latter two are as good as the formerly named teams), Auburn, USC, you are playing by different rules. OU, UT, UF, Bama, LSU, OSU can lose a game and still play for NCs. Utah, Boise, hell, even Auburn can go undefeated and still have no chance. USC can't lose a game (twice in 6 years now) and be in the same discussion as the Big 12 and SEC teams. UW beat UM, UM beat FSU yet FSU plays OU in 2000. How is the regular season a playoff when you don't respect those results? How is it a playoff when teams go undefeated and their ceiling is 6th or 8th?

I love college football, more than CBK and more than the pro sports and I am tense as all hell watching OU games. I loved the SEC title game with everything on the line, Oregon St upsetting USC, TT upsetting UT, Iowa/PSU, etc., but in the end I can't get over the inherent biases and fact that when you get right down to it, only 15-18 teams annually have a chance at an NC and even amongst those teams, certain teams have significantly more difficult criteria to get there.

Regarding my GF, which is actually a moot point, she was big on the BCS last year because she wanted an SEC Team to get in the title game and was hoping for LSU.

I understand all of your points, just not for them.

College football is the best regular season in sports, and it gives every team except for the smaller schools a chance to feel like they are part of a playoff system throughout the whole year and then top their year off with a bowl game. Obviously, there needs to be some things tweaked so MWC, MAC, whoever, can have an opportunity to place their best team as an at large into the mix.

With a 16-team playoff, it will be the SAME SHIT every year. Florida, Oklahoma, LSU, USC, Texas, Ohio State, etc etc etc all just jumbled up in seeding each year with a couple of newcomers each year.

One team has 0 losses all year, and some team like USC will take a late season loss, for their 2nd loss of the year, drop to #16 in the polls and fuck up the world of the #1 seed who hadnt lost a game all year and got paired up with a powerhouse because of this playoff system.

I am not for turning this sport into every other sport on the planet - a boring regular season, and a tournament at the end where a bunch of teams get in that have no business because they had average regular seasons.

I like this system because it is controversial, exciting, every play, every week matters, and it just needs to be tweaked to create some more fairness.

1. Allow the best, highest Ranked "at-large" team in the BCS from small conferences to enter the Final Four.
2. Eliminate teams being allowed to schedule I-AA schools.
3. Standardize a conference title game for all conferences, across the board.
4. Create a Final-4, for the 3 highest BCS Teams and 1 at-large team from smaller conferences. Make it mandatory to win your conference title to be a part of the final-4. If you don't play for, and win your conference title game, you do not get into the BCS Final Four.
5. Schedule the Final 4 games 2 weeks after the conclusion of the conference title games in mid-December, and the title game in early January, eliminating the long layoff between games.

This scenario would create the following Final 4:

BCS #1 Big 12 Champ Oklahoma vs. BCS at-large Conf Champ Utah

BCS #2 SEC Champ Florida vs. BCS #5 Pac-10 Champ USC

Texas is OUT. That is through no fault of the system, but the Big 12 conference's own rules for qualifying for the Big 12 Title Game. If they dont like how it worked out this year, that is something THAT conference has to fix in their tiebreaker rules.

Since the system takes the highest rated BCS Conf Champs, you must schedule good OOC teams so that when you are your conference's champ, you don't get beat out by an ACC Champ, Big Ten Champ, etc. The only way to assure you win your conference and remain a high rated BCS team is to schedule a difficult OOC schedule.
 
Last edited:

Woah, woah, Daddy's wrong, Mommy's right.
Joined
Feb 25, 2006
Messages
7,977
Tokens
I hear you, but like you with me, I disagree. I don't see any way where it will be reasonably fair to every team with anything less than 8 team playoff. I prefer 16 so all conference champs can get in, but at least with 8 you can bring in all BCS conf champs and have 2 at larges. Unfortunately that does allow for shit box teams like VTU and Cincy to get in at the expense of TT and Boise. Regardless, it is an enjoyable debate, but moot since I don't see it happening any time soon.
 

Woah, woah, Daddy's wrong, Mommy's right.
Joined
Feb 25, 2006
Messages
7,977
Tokens
One last thing, you have annually 4-5 shit teams that win their conferences. A team like USC would never be in position to be a 16 seed. MAC, Sun Belt, MWC, CONFUSA, WAC, etc., will always provide 14-16. You will have MASSIVE matchups in the round of 8 every year.

Form holds you get

OU/PSU
UF/TT
UT/Utah
USC/Bama
 

Nirvana Shill
Joined
Oct 20, 2001
Messages
29,090
Tokens
At what f*ckin point is anyone going to understand that there are contracts in place to have the current BCS System for AT LEAST a few more years.

You can't go a day without someone talking about a playoff system, like the concept hasn't been beaten dead already.

Whether you like the BCS System or not, enough is enough. IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN ANYTIME SOON. GET OVER IT.

It's like saying, "Crap, I married this fat hoe. If Angelina Jolie was in the picture, I'd be doing doggie style without even asking. I gotta take this chick to dinner just to get some missionary in the dark." YOU AIN'T BANGIN JOLIE UNTIL AT LEAST 2012, if ever, and there will NOT be a Playoff System until at least 2012, if ever. So stop thinking about what outfits Jolie will wear for you, and stop thinking about cliched, unimaginative playoff brackets.

Speaking of which, you would finally get Jolie and your playoff system in 2012, you would blow your load over both in the first 5 mins, and the regular dates and the regular season would both become meaningless and boring - just like this shitty NFL regular season, shitty NBA regular season, shitty MLB regular season that is completely unexciting unless you have money on every game or fantasy football going.

Had to get that off my chest.:party:

If you don't like the whining why don't you just pass on the thread. Not really that tough to do
 

Nirvana Shill
Joined
Oct 20, 2001
Messages
29,090
Tokens
Complete & utter bullshit that the regular season would mean nothing. I am so sick of people saying a playoff would cheapen the season. The comparisons between two different levels & sometimes sports is ridiculous enough.

Ask the teams, fans, etc.. of I-AA/FCS teams who have to fight all season to try & qualify for a playoff spot. If you don't win your conference, it has to come down to getting at-large bids. The season is always exciting & it would be exactly the same for I-A. If one can't get that, they truly need to get a clue as they are way off base.

Talk about meaningless regular season, look no further than the I-A/FBS regular season which eliminates a majority of teams from title chances before spring ball!

If anything a playoff might open the door for better scheduling so teams can have quality wins to help boost their chances at at-large bids.

Maybe we should just elimimate March Madness and the regular season in college hoops would mean a heckuva lot more too. I agree , idiotic argument that the regular season means so much now because we don't have a 8 team playoff
 

Nirvana Shill
Joined
Oct 20, 2001
Messages
29,090
Tokens
I disagree with you 100%. Playoffs would cheapen the regular season as we know it. I have no doubt in my mind. We will agree to disagree. The I-AA teams never had a taste of a regular season this exciting and intense. They have nothing to compare to.

I never said the BCS was perfect. Tweaks need to be made, specifically some kind of a Final Four, or Final 3 with #1 getting a bye is all that is needed. You dont need 8 freakin teams making the "playoffs". Scheduling the 1 vs. 4 and 2vs. 3 semi-finals in mid-December would eliminate another issue which is 4-5 week layoffs before the big games. 2 weeks to prepare for semi-final, 2 weeks to prepare for national title. No major layoffs. Allowing teams from smaller non BCS conferences to compete for national titles should be allowed. Some kind of mandatory scheduling would need to go into effect to force these teams to schedule at least 2 major conference opponents in their OOC scheduling. Eliminate teams being allowed to play I-AA teams. Etc.

You make these changes, maintain the current BCS for excitement/controversy, and create a Final 3/Final 4, and you will legitimize the national title a little more while still maintaining the best regular season in sports.

Not sure anybody can convince me that Utah-Bama or Va Tech-Cincy are games of interest to anybody. They don't mean squat
 

Nirvana Shill
Joined
Oct 20, 2001
Messages
29,090
Tokens
While it might not be fair for everyone, you can't deny that the BCS system makes for the most exciting regular season in sports, whether it be collegiate or professional.

When you play your exhibition games in late Dec and January, I wouldn't call that excitement. Thats when i turn off College Football except for championship game
 

Nirvana Shill
Joined
Oct 20, 2001
Messages
29,090
Tokens
10 teams now? Yeah that doesnt water anything down. Letting anyone and everyone into the playoffs. It would KILL the regular season.

You will see these polls change so quick because they are done by HUMANS. If there are 10 teams, you will start seeing 2-loss Michigan, and 3-loss Ohio State teams getting voted at #9 and #10 so they get into the playoffs. You will see the whole poll system change with human bias in it.

You saw the polls being manipulated already this year. We saw coaches vote Texas up so they can get into the title game and it just barely didnt work. But the principle of the matter was disturbing.

10 teams by the way increases the season by 5 weeks, it will never happen.

8 teams increases the season by 4 weeks. It will never happen.

This isnt the NFL, this isnt these guys jobs. The vast majority of these kids will NOT play in the NFL. You are forgetting that this is college football.

On a team like Florida or Oklahoma, loaded with talent, maybe 7 or 8 guys of the roster of 60 have a legit chance of playing in the NFL and get drafted. Other than that, these guys need to focus on their academics. You cant just add 4 weeks to the season during final exams. On teams like Utah, Boise State, etc maybe 3 of their guys have a chance to play in the NFL. The other 57 need to focus on school.

8 teams doesn't increase season 4 weeks. Especially if you use the current BCS games as quarterfinal matchups. That makes the games something to watch instead of the way they are now. only 3 extra games would be played and that would make the season more interesting
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,788
Messages
13,573,035
Members
100,866
Latest member
tt88myy
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com