re: So You Want A College Football Playoff?

quote:

---

But, you tell me--- was Butler the second best basketball program in the NCAA a couple of years ago? If they played any other team 10 times, would they win >5 from all but Duke?
Doubtful, I'd say. And, while I love March Madness because of stories like Butler, I'll be the first to say that the winner is not necessarily the best team--- or even all that close.

it would be hard to argue that the BCS champ each year isn't at least one of the the top 2 or 3 teams.

---

I don't think anybody wants a 64 team football playoff. Given the two choices though I'd much rather have a championship that is decided on the field than one determined by human bias and senseless computers. Also any system that allows for a team to win every game it plays and not win a championship is a complete joke.

quote:

---

yes, prove they said it. I do not believe for 1 second that a guy who will not even pick a winner in a game he is calling actually lobbied voters on air to vote for a particular rematch. He might have said it could or should happen, but unless you can PROVE (video of him saying it will suffice) then I think its just you imagining things.

---

I can back up TigersofGeauxld. I remember Herbstreit advocating for a Michigan-Ohio State rematch as well. He said something to the effect of how much of a mistake it would be for voters to penalize Michigan for the loss and rule out a rematch because the game was played at Columbus instead of on a neutral field. It was even mentioned in Urban Meyer's book.

quote:

---

Kirk Herbstreit was a poster boy for the cartel as far as Gators fans were concerned because he had openly campaigned for a Michigan-Ohio State rematch.

---

Also, here's the video of Kirk Herbstreit saying Ohio State should play Michigan again for the
BCS national championship.

LINK

Kirk Herbstreit

quote:

---

Florida's deserving after the year that they've had. It's just my opinion after watching Michigan the way they played against Ohio State in Ohio Stadium, the no. 1 team in the country, that they are deserving of being the no. 2 team. If you're thinking I don't want to see a rematch, you shouldn't vote. That's not the right thing to do. If you think Florida's deserving of being no. 2 based on the merits of winning the SEC, than put Florida at 2. But if you're going to put Florida at no. 2 because you don't want to see a rematch, that's not the right thing to do. That's not fair.

---

quote:

---

where was the Alabama-Texass game played, looked like on the field to me

---

Like I said, one of the handful of times the BCS has somewhat worked. Why would you choose a system that relies on pure luck to produce a legit champion?

quote:

---

Like I said, one of the handful of times the BCS has somewhat worked

---

it worked everytime except maybe 2003 and 2004.

quote:

---

Why would you choose a system that relies on pure luck to produce a legit champion?

---

any one and done format is pure lucky. Hell even a 7 games series, the Pirates can beat anyone 4 out of 7.

quote:

---

that would have been a good thing. Over 16 games the Giants proved they were not as good as Dallas, let alone NE. Anything can happen in 1 game, the Giants winnings makes the regular season meaningless.

---

First of all, the Giants won 7 of their last 9 that season before they beat the "better" team in the Super Bowl. You can think all you want that New England is better, but like I said, opinions don't count. "Hey, 9 out of 10 times NE would have beat the Giants". Guess what, in the NFL, coulda, woulda, shoulda, is just bullshite opinion. Take all the opinion polls you want. They could be 100% unanimous that the Pats were better that year. Guess what? You can wipe your arse with it, it's that worthless. The Giants were better than the Pats in 07, and they have the hardware to prove it. 18-1 without championship hardware is nothing I'd brag about.

What is so difficult to comprehend? Ohio St does this almost every year in CFB. They lose maybe one game a year, usually at the end, and don't get any hardware, yet you have no problem recognizing Ohio St regular season wins don't count for shite. Spouting off baseless opinionated drivel makes you no better than opinionated guys like Herbstriet that said right after LSU beat Ohio St for the title that he would vote USC the "better" team. Differences in opinions are unavoidable & innate. So what you or I or anybody "thinks" should be taken out of the championship-awarding equation and played on the field, and only a playoff system would ensure that.

Serious question: Why even have championship game at any level if the Pats, Ohio St, USC teams, etc... are "better" in the regular season? For you guys that hold opinions higher than on-field play, why even play a championship round? Just award a team a championship. Oh that's right, they already did that in the '03-04 season. How'd that work out? Isn't that why we are here?

quote:

---

OOC games would mean absolutely nothing, and nobody would schedule any worth a shite

---

Great. That's exactly what I want. I'd love to see LSU beat a WAC team 65-0. Instead, we have to jeopardize our season by playing mid-level OOC BCS teams just because there's a good chance we could lose a game in our tougher conference, and would look less "bad" in "voter eyes" if 85% of the schedule was tough as opposed to 60%. shite, every other friggin' conference has teams in them not worth a shite, much less their even-shittier OOC teams on their schedule.

Oh by the way, that "shitty" McNeese St game turned out pretty entertaining.

quote:

---

it worked everytime except maybe 2003 and 2004.

---

2000,2001,2003,2004,2007,2008...

solid post Freek

quote:

---

the pats won 9 of 9, including beating the giants

---

That and a quarter will get you some bubble gum.

quote:

---

2008 UF

---

Raises hand. '08 Florida was probably the best team in college football but USC would have given them a hell of a game. They had the only defense in the country capable of keeping both Harvin and Tebow in check and USC's offense was absolutely awesome when it was on its game.

quote:

---

who argues about the following champs?

---

That's what you don't get. There never should be any arguing over who was champ. That should be crystal clear.

But even those champs you listed, we'll never know if there was a team that could be a "better" team when it counted, and championship mettle was shown.

We could sit here all day, and most of us would agree that Miami was the best team in 2001. But people agreeing or disagreeing should never enter the championship awarding equation. And it did. Miami was selected by "voters with opinions" to play in that game. We'll never know who was the real champion that year or any year, no matter if we "think" they got "the best teams" right or not.

That's why it's called the Mythical National Championship. And the system is bullshite.