Sorry you feel that way but we did win under the BCS guidelines and we, along with Oklahoma were ranked higher than you. So the 2 best teams did play each other and the best team did win. That's why we have a :crystal: in our trophy case. If you dispute this, then you invalidate your own trophy from 2004. As much as I like you and respect the Trojans, I am not going to let you degrade our accomplishments on this board without speaking up.
Yes I do mean that. And the computers that are part of the formula for determining the BCS points felt that way as well. That's why they got left out. In that particular year, their OOC schedule bit them. Life sucks. when the teams you beat are: Central Michigan Southeastern La. Toledo Florida International Kansas St.(only ranked team @ 24) Baylor Colorado Texas A&M Nebraska Oklahoma State For some crazy reason people think that wins over better teams are more important. And you can keep changing your hypothetical win/loss teams but the quality of your wins and losses will always have an effect on your final ranking. It does, it should, and it will.
Sorry, brother. That's where our difference probably resides. Two quick points. First, scheduling should not determine a NC. If the team is undefeated and has a respectable SOS, then the BCS system will acknowledge that. If they haven't played quality opponents, then they take that hit. I'm a FAN of that. Why would you want an undefeated Big East or ACC team to have that advantage over an SEC team? Second, playoff systems may or may not remove subjectivity, but they won't get rid of the controversy. An SEC team will still have to play a far tougher road to get to the NC game than an ACC or Big East team. How's that fair? Are you going to reshuffle the conferences? Good luck with that. I hear you. I just disagree. And, frankly, I'm puzzled why you and others are so passionate about this. :huh: I'm hugely obsessed with LSU football, but I accept the BCS system. It gives the Tigers a fair shot at playing for it all if they only lose one game.
Post of the year! I was somewhat in favor of a playoff system, until this year. Here's why. I love that in college every game matters. And I'm not just talking about every game on OUR schedule, I mean EVERY game. Think about it. With a playoff system I would have watched USF/Rutgers with limited enthusiasm, and only because it was football and the only game played that night. But because we actually depended HEAVILY on the outcome, I was on the edge of my seat, yelling at the TV and cursing at my wife. We were already #4, so the game wouldn't have mattered much to us under most playoff formats I've seen mentioned. I may or may not have watched the BC/VaTech game on that Thursday night (it conflicted with the world series), but since we needed BC to lose, once again I was jumping around (this time in a hotel room in freakin' Corpus Christi). Same thing, this game would have been irrellevant to me with a playoff system. Same with the BC/FSU game. Holy Hell when Ryan threw that pick, I leaped outta my chair and hit my arm on the ceiling fan. Can pretty much promise that wouldn't have happened if we had a playoff. During the LSU/Florida game, yes the reaction to the USC loss would have been loud (due to our hatred of them), but nowhere near what it was. Not even close. This past Saturday, while walking back to the car (AGAIN), I watched the final minute and a half of the Ohio State game at God only knows whose tailgate with lots of other complete strangers and we all proceeded to hop around like liquored up jack-asses when Illinois made that last first down. Considering I care less than nothing about Big 11 football, I probably wouldn't have even watched that game if it didn't mean something to us. That's what makes College Football what it is. It's staying up til 2 am watching Hawaii and Freaking Boise St. to see if WE get a schedule boost. It's suddenly having to root for a hated rival because it benefits YOU that week, only to turn around and hate them again, because you need them to lose. I love the anxiety of waiting for the new polls to come out Sunday evening.
A playoff puts more of each team's destiny into it's own hands, pure and simple. No other sport on earth elects those eligible for a championship based on the supposed quality of those that they've played. Only how many games they've played, and the win-loss record. If an undefeated team is as bad as the schedule suggests, that will be made apparent on the playing field, after which no more questions will be needed regarding their quality. Saying an undefeated team is overrated because they've destroyed 12 supposedly weak teams is pure conjecture. If they, like Ohio State, destroy 12 weak teams only to be whipped by a team supposedly on their level, like Florida last year, THEN I'll say they were overrated.
And removes a lot of the passion, drama, and tradition that makes college football better than any other sport. 2 Trivia questions for you: Q. Which of the 6 major american sporting events (college and pro football, baseball, and basketball) is the only one to have no playoff system at all? A. College Football Q. Which of those six sports has the largest stadiums, most passionate followings, and best atmospheres? A. College Football. I personally do not think this is a coincidence.
I have acknowledged your :crystal: on this forum many times. I apologize if it came across as degrading in any way. What I dispute is that the 2 best teams don't always end up in the NC game. I'm not even sure that happened last year. How many people in the country outside of Columbus really felt like OSU belonged in that game? And I still believe the 2003 NC game should have been LSU and USC. Doesn't mean LSU wouldn't have won. And yes, I expect and believe that LSU should be at the big dance this year too.
WTF Atreus. You come up with impossible hypotheticals and expect anyone to really give a fck. Lay off on the crack and take a deep breath. No 3 to 4 loss team will ever be in the champtionship game in the current situation unless every other team except one has at least 3 losses on that year.
Those are all good points. Here's a rebuttal/response of sorts: What if it was a 12-team playoff, and there were incentives built-in to make finishing as highly as possible something to aspire for? For example, that John Feinstein article (link here) I mentioned previously is for a 12-team playoff - the top 4 get a bye in the opening round. The next 4 get a first-round home game. The next 4 get into the playoffs. So LSU fans, with LSU at the #4 spot, would still want teams above LSU to lose, to help keep LSU slide a little higher to make it less likely they'll slip out of the top 4. Losing would still hurt, because if you're in the top 4 and lose, you'll be likely to miss out on the bye week, and will be in danger of falling down into 9-12. With the current system, every game is important, but primarily only for the teams that have a realistic chance of getting into the top 2. But with a 12-team system, every game is important, for a lot more teams. Teams in the mid-teens in the rankings will be extremely interested in games involving every team above them. Teams in the top 10 are interested in every key game as well, because they all want to move up, and want to avoid moving down. So my thinking, to summarize, is that a properly created playoff could keep the importance of the regular season while still allowing for more playoff participants.
