detlef Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 Nice try. The point I'm making is that IF the New England Patriots would have lost their 1st playoff game you could not have convinced me the Patriots were not the best team in the NFL this season. All a playoff does is give us a different way of finding out which team wins a competition. BCS chooses to do it over the course of a season while the NFL does it with a playoff. Do I really think the Namath's NY Jets were better than the Johnny Unitas Colts? Regardless of the method used, history will always reflect the NY Jets as the 1969 Super Bowl Chamipions & LSU Tigers as the BCS Champion this year. Dude you are still dodging the issues. The shortcoming of any play-off system be it 64 or 2 teams is that the play-off becomes more important than the entire regular season. However, that's just as true for the BCS as it is for anything else. So, let's say there was a completely iron-clad manner in determining the best two teams to play for the title. One that absolutely nobody could dispute. Now, both you and I know that's impossible, but, for your sake, let's just pretend. Now, somebody still has to be #1 and somebody still has to be #2. Let's say you've got a team that plays a tough schedule and just blows everybody away to go undefeated. Meanwhile, everyone else has got 2 losses and hasn't looked all that great doing so. None the less, everyone can agree that one of those teams is better than the others and should be #2. According to you, why even play the game? The season has already shown us that team #1 is way better than everyone else. Should their starting QB go down in the 1st quarter or some such and lose that game, the "best team" did not, in fact win the title. So, not only has the BCS subjected us to deciding who gets a shot by votes and computers, they haven't even assured us that the "best team" will end up being the champ. Of course, you don't need to pull up theoretical situations to prove the issue. The simple fact is, the BCS has provided us with a conclusion to the season that most can feel satisfied with about as often as it hasn't. It's track record for producing competitive games is no better than the SB, yet unlike the SB, it does not assure us that every team of merit has an opportunity to win or lose on the field. In short, it's a freaking sham. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 If I am not mistaken you root for a Big 12 team, right? Do you guys have a Big 12 BB or baseball tournament? Which would you rather see your team win? The regular season title or the Big 12 tournament title? Lame argument # whatever. You are trying to use a tourney in which every team, regardless of record is allowed to participate to discredit a tourney in which only those teams that proved they belonged (and perhaps in some years 1 or 2 who are marginal) are invited. Major, major difference. College conference tourneys are sort of lame due to that manner in which they make the regular season meaningless but there's really nothing else like it in sports. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted January 14, 2008 Author Share Posted January 14, 2008 If I am not mistaken you root for a Big 12 team, right? Do you guys have a Big 12 BB or baseball tournament? Which would you rather see your team win? The regular season title or the Big 12 tournament title? What does this have to do with anything? The Big 12 tournament is just that ... a tournament. Teams are seeded according to their regular season performance and play goes until their is just one team standing. I love to watch my Aggies win regular season games AND tournaments. If I had to choose one I'd rather them beat the top teams in the tournament and win the tournament than have them have a great regular season and wash out in the tournament. The regular season is a tune up for the tournament. So what is your point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockerbraves Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 According to you, why even play the game? The season has already shown us that team #1 is way better than everyone else. Should their starting QB go down in the 1st quarter or some such and lose that game, the "best team" did not, in fact win the title. So, not only has the BCS subjected us to deciding who gets a shot by votes and computers, they haven't even assured us that the "best team" will end up being the champ. Of course, you don't need to pull up theoretical situations to prove the issue. The simple fact is, the BCS has provided us with a conclusion to the season that most can feel satisfied with about as often as it hasn't. It's track record for producing competitive games is no better than the SB, yet unlike the SB, it does not assure us that every team of merit has an opportunity to win or lose on the field. In short, it's a freaking sham. Guess we see it differently. I see it as a competition that results in a winner over a longer period of time while you see it as a claim of being the best over a short period of time. Really don't see how a playoff does that? Granted we mentioned Tiger Woods several times today, but can you honestly tell me that 2007 - Angel Cabrera, 2006 - Geoff Ogilvy, 2005 - Michael Campbell, and 2004 - Retief Goosen are the best in golfers since Tiger Woods hasn't won since 2004. You yourself used the track meet analogy as an example in your discussion of why the SEC is the best not over a short period but a long period, yet for some reason you want to crown a champion over a 2 or 3 week period? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockerbraves Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 What does this have to do with anything? The Big 12 tournament is just that ... a tournament. Teams are seeded according to their regular season performance and play goes until their is just one team standing. I love to watch my Aggies win regular season games AND tournaments. If I had to choose one I'd rather them beat the top teams in the tournament and win the tournament than have them have a great regular season and wash out in the tournament. The regular season is a tune up for the tournament. So what is your point? My point is that is what separates our thinking. Not that either is wrong, however unlike you I would rather see LSU win the regular season title than a tournament title. To me that's a bigger test . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted January 14, 2008 Author Share Posted January 14, 2008 Guess we see it differently. I see it as a competition that results in a winner over a longer period of time while you see it as a claim of being the best over a short period of time. Really don't see how a playoff does that? Are you really that dense? You don't get to the playoffs unless you earn with your regular season. But once you make the playoffs you can no longer ride the laurels of your season ... you have to earn it again. Some teams cruise into the playoffs, some teams fight tooth and nail to get there. Sometimes the teams that cruise into the playoffs have been cruising too long and lose to the teams that have been fighting tooth and nail to get there. It is NOT enough to win your division by week 12 and then sit on your hands until your bowl game gets here, hell it is not even enough to go undefeated in the regular season ... you still have to earn the right to play for the title by beating 3 or 4 other playoff teams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 Guess we see it differently. I see it as a competition that results in a winner over a longer period of time while you see it as a claim of being the best over a short period of time. Really don't see how a playoff does that? Granted we mentioned Tiger Woods several times today, but can you honestly tell me that 2007 - Angel Cabrera, 2006 - Geoff Ogilvy, 2005 - Michael Campbell, and 2004 - Retief Goosen are the best in golfers since Tiger Woods hasn't won since 2004. You yourself used the track meet analogy as an example in your discussion of why the SEC is the best not over a short period but a long period, yet for some reason you want to crown a champion over a 2 or 3 week period? Sorry but you're going to need to try and make sense if this argument is going to continue. I'm not sure what Tiger Woods has not won since 2004. However, since there's no single golf tourney that can rightfully claim the winner is the best golfer in the world, I have no idea what you're talking about there. Once again, very slowly. Both of us are talking about a tourney that ends up being more important than the regular season. It's just that you are advocating a 2 team tourney and I'm advocating one that is larger. In both cases, the regular season is rendered meaningless by how one team performs during a very short stretch at the end of the year. In my case, it is determined by how one team does in a 3 game tourney, in yours it is how they do in a one game tourney. The only difference is that I support erring on the side of inclusion and letting the teams themselves decide who belongs in that single winner take all game and you're erring on the side of exclusion and letting computers and voters decide. My suggestion risks the possibility of a mediocre team squeaking in and just happening to get hot at the right time (which it so happens doesn't really happen very often at all). Your suggestion risks the possibility of those voters and computers failing to truly pick the two best teams to play each other (which seems to happen quite often). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockerbraves Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 (edited) Sorry but you're going to need to try and make sense if this argument is going to continue. I'm not sure what Tiger Woods has not won since 2004. However, since there's no single golf tourney that can rightfully claim the winner is the best golfer in the world, I have no idea what you're talking about there. Once again, very slowly. Both of us are talking about a tourney that ends up being more important than the regular season. It's just that you are advocating a 2 team tourney and I'm advocating one that is larger. In both cases, the regular season is rendered meaningless by how one team performs during a very short stretch at the end of the year. In my case, it is determined by how one team does in a 3 game tourney, in yours it is how they do in a one game tourney. The only difference is that I support erring on the side of inclusion and letting the teams themselves decide who belongs in that single winner take all game and you're erring on the side of exclusion and letting computers and voters decide. My suggestion risks the possibility of a mediocre team squeaking in and just happening to get hot at the right time (which it so happens doesn't really happen very often at all). Your suggestion risks the possibility of those voters and computers failing to truly pick the two best teams to play each other (which seems to happen quite often). I'll try and keep it simple. If Tiger Woods loses in a US Open playoff does that make the person who beat him the best golfer in the USA? Or does it make him the winner of the US Open? The way the BCS works today is that the Champion (winner) is determined by a 12 to 14 game playoff. Edited January 14, 2008 by Rockerbraves Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 I'll try and keep it simple. If Tiger Woods loses in a US Open playoff does that make the person who beat him the best golfer in the USA? Or does it make him the winner of the US Open? The way the BCS works today is that the Champion (winner) is determined by a 12 to 14 game playoff. Don't confuse "keeping it simple" with "over simplifying it". Golf has no play-off or championship like any other sport so it simply doesn't apply. If the BCS was a 12 to 14 game play-off, why did LSU manage to make the championship despite losing in week 12? The "whole season is a playoff" is a horrible example. Just look at the word "playoff". As in, play to see who advances. That's what a playoff is. Your 12 game "playoff" is, "try to look good enough for the judges so you'll magically be declared one of the teams deserving of the right to play for all the marbles." That, my friend, is not a playoff. This is where we commonly agree to disagree. However, understand that your logic is very, very poor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockerbraves Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 Don't confuse "keeping it simple" with "over simplifying it". Golf has no play-off or championship like any other sport so it simply doesn't apply. If the BCS was a 12 to 14 game play-off, why did LSU manage to make the championship despite losing in week 12? The "whole season is a playoff" is a horrible example. Just look at the word "playoff". As in, play to see who advances. That's what a playoff is. Your 12 game "playoff" is, "try to look good enough for the judges so you'll magically be declared one of the teams deserving of the right to play for all the marbles." That, my friend, is not a playoff. This is where we commonly agree to disagree. However, understand that your logic is very, very poor. Think we both know the main reason LSU earned their slot in the NC game was due to the other 1 loss teams ahead of them losing and LSU winning the SEC Championship. If a playoff does come about one day you won't hear me complaining since it would have certainly would have helped LSU last season provided they allow more than one team in a conference to participate. Like I said when we first got on this subject. We will both agree to disagree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 (edited) Think we both know the main reason LSU earned their slot in the NC game was due to the other 1 loss teams ahead of them losing and LSU winning the SEC Championship. If a playoff does come about one day you won't hear me complaining since it would have certainly would have helped LSU last season provided they allow more than one team in a conference to participate. Like I said when we first got on this subject. We will both agree to disagree. Sorry, the only problem with "agreeing to disagree" is that implies a stand still based on two people seeing the same data two viable ways. The problem here is, you've simply avoided any data that is damning to your argument and pretending things that actually make your case weaker don't. It doesn't matter why LSU made the NC game provided nobody is under the illusion that they made it there by way of a "playoff" because they simply didn't. I understand why they made the game. Like you said, they won their conference and enough teams in front of them lost. As it turns out, that's exactly how OSU made it. Keep in mind, I am not disputing the fact that both of those teams had as much right to play in that game as anyone else. However, explain how that, in any way, resembles how playoffs work. Keep in mind, OSU and LSU both punched their tickets to the NC game by beating Mich and UT, neither of which even remotely resembled elite teams. How again is that a play-off? You beat the 30th ranked team and then you get to play for the title. Sounds a lot like Boxing if you ask me. Edited January 14, 2008 by detlef Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockerbraves Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 Sounds a lot like Boxing if you ask me. Sounds more like golf to me. Of course the current BCS system being more like the US Open playoff (18 holes) while your playoff is more like that of the Masters sudden death playoff where a golfer is out after one bad hole? Seems the British Open and PGA have found some middle ground using a 4 & 3 hole playoff. Perhaps the BCS middle ground could be a plus 1? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darin3 Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 Holy mother of God it's a Rockerbraves/Grits/detlef circle-jerk. I now know the fury of Hell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted January 15, 2008 Author Share Posted January 15, 2008 (edited) I am absolutely amazed that somebody is really trying to equate an individual event like golf to a national championship. Golf has more than several tournaments each year where individual players can choose to participate or not. Am I to understand that the individual college teams can choose whether or not they wish to participate in the national championship game? Am I to understand that there are multiple national championship games per year? In a golf tournament every player plays against every other player in the tournament. Am I to understand that by the time you get to the national championship game in college that it is a contest between the two teams that have defeated every other team in the tournament? Then there is a cut off in golf as well ... some players go home and others advance. Each player that makes the cut has a chance to win the tournament. Where is the cut off in college football? Does every team that makes the cut off have a chance to win the national championship? Attempting to draw a correlation between golf and college football and the national championship game is ludicrous and not helpful to any point you are so feebly attempting to make. Edited January 15, 2008 by Grits and Shins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWPFFL BrianW Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 First off, Rocker Tiger hasn't won the US Open since 2002, not 2004. Grits... my reference was you continually bashing on Ohio State. I agree, I advocate a playoff system. The BCS is the worst system ever for a multitude of reasons that have been beaten to death. However, within that system, anyone who claims that Ohio State didn't deserve to be there doesn't know what they are talking about. They played within the crappy system, and benefitted from it. Now if your argument is to say that they weren't won of the 2 best, you won't get any arguments from me. We both agree, that the BCS is a terrible system. I hate it because it takes out most of the participants before a ball is even kicked in preseason polls. You get ranked #1 or #2 before you even take a snap, you have a head start, and unfair one at that. If your school has the rich tradition, and tons of money with glorious facilities, you get to schedule the marquee out of conference games years in advance, and if you win those games, you've got a leg up. It's not an inclusive system at all. In 2002 through 2006, 50 % of the "National Championship" was determined before a ball was even kicked, as preseason #1 went on to play in the national championship. So in August, coaches and media arbitrarily said, this team is in the national championship. In 2004 and 2005 #2 was also decided in August. Is that a fair system? Is even a pointless + 1 a fair system? I wonder if Auburn fans liked the system in 2004 when they actually ACCOMPLISHED a real feat in the SEC and ran the table you know rocker (they didnt lose to unranked teams), only to be told that because they weren't ranked one of the 2 best teams in August, they don't belong. Yeah what a great system. And in defense of the NFL playoffs, the regular season is to build your resume for the post season. The reward is that there are 4 byes given out, which in most years teams play at least into week 15 and sometimes into week 16. Now if you aren't GOOD ENOUGH to take advantage of the fact that your knicked up players get an extra week to recover, then you AREN'T good enough. If you shrink the playoffs, then all you're doing is adding to the many pointless games you were crying about, because the pool of teams that don't have ANYTHING to play for increases. You want more pointless regular season football, shrink it to 4 teams per conference. All of the sudden, Minnesota, Washington, New Orleans, Cleveland, Tennessee etc have a few pointless games to close out the year. As for your argument about conference tournaments, the reward is seeding. In a lot of cases teams are playing for a higher seed. Depends on the selection committee, but some have really weighted the conference tourney winners pretty highly, not to mention it gives teams on the bubble (ahhh the word bubble the slam dunk argument for playoffs) one last chance to win in most cases 4 games in 4 days (an awesome feat) to secure an automatic berth. Some just need to win a couple more games to secure an at large. And that is where the importance of regular season doesn't lose any meaning, it's for the last teams in. That's where the exictement is, with the last few teams on the proverbial bubble. The favorites play for an advantage (you see, getting a bye is an advantage, and if you can't take advantage, then are you really that good?) and the underdogs are playing for the right to move on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockerbraves Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 I am absolutely amazed that somebody is really trying to equate an individual event like golf to a national championship. I can certainly understand why you are absolutely amazed. Apparently you don't follow golf much? An individual player can't choose to play in a US Open. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockerbraves Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 (edited) Brian first off the Rose Bowl is the only thing really stopping a true playoff discussion. From what I can tell, you like so many typical big ten fans seem to prefer your old time Rose Bowl tradition over any form of a playoff. I have news for all you Big 10 fans, the Pac 10 fans don't feel the same love for the Rose Bowl as much as you guys. Don't be surprise if the Pac 10 finally grows a pair as big as Les Miles and finally tells your Big 10 commissioner where to put his Rose Bowl conference tie ins. Pac 10ers are starting to figure out what their big brothers are doing and they are getting tired of being dragged down by the Big 10. Edited January 15, 2008 by Rockerbraves Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt. Ryan Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 This tool was hammered again. LSU backed in the NC game by a vote. They didnt earn it on the field. It was an objective opinion that landed this 2 loss team in the NC, when certainly other teams were just as if not more worthy. I can bet LSu would get creamed by SC any day of the week. And Id pick OU, Texas, Missouri or GA to beat them as well. This team avoided the best team in the SEC all yr, then backed into the NC game, and was given OSU as the opponent. It was a complete joke LSU got into that game. Playing at home (NO), in front of 70% of their home fans against an inferior opponent when there were 5 or 6 more worthy than either team will never convince me or anyone LSU earned anything. They were hand picked to play in a game against a team that couldnt beat the worst BCS team Ill. Enjoy your mythical championship and please stick around and get schooled by everyone else in this forum. I love seeing a victim in life be victimized on this board. If you had any sack at all you would have met up with OSU and I while in town. But you were a scared POS, that will just run his mouth, on a message board no less. When you could have done so face to face. But something tells me you were scared to death to even join us for a beer and whatever else we decided to do to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockerbraves Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 Glad to hear you have a new boyfriend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWPFFL BrianW Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 Brian first off the Rose Bowl is the only thing really stopping a true playoff discussion. From what I can tell, you like so many typical big ten fans seem to prefer your old time Rose Bowl tradition over any form of a playoff. I have news for all you Big 10 fans, the Pac 10 fans don't feel the same love for the Rose Bowl as much as you guys. Don't be surprise if the Pac 10 finally grows a pair as big as Les Miles and finally tells your Big 10 commissioner where to put his Rose Bowl conference tie ins. Pac 10ers are starting to figure out what their big brothers are doing and they are getting tired of being dragged down by the Big 10. Not sure about that, but then again I'm not sure about a lot of the things you post, but I'll bite. This has nothing to do with FANS, and everything to do with MONEY. And yes, Big Ten and Pac 10 have a lucrative deal going on with the Rose Bowl. If the ACC can raid another conference, all for the sake of the mighty buck, then the Big Ten and Pac 10 can hold onto their piece of the pie too. And oh by the way, what does the SEC commissioner (Delaneys little lapdog) say about anything? How come the only one ever speaking up is a few college administrators. Funny, you're the only one here defending the BCS, the rest of us actually would like to see a playoff. Could it be, you like the system because it's the only system where your team could lose to 2 unranked teams, and STILL play in a National Championship game at home? You LOVE the system. It's worked out twice for LSU (only team to do it) so absolutely, you love it. Chalk your name as one of Jim Delaney's puppets? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWPFFL BrianW Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 (edited) And yes, I do prefer tradition over the BCS. But if you come up with a FAIR and viable playoff system, then absolutely I'm all for it. But we've had the BCS for 10 seasons, and it hasnt solved any more than what it was before, and it actually made more games less important. Yep, great system rocker. I say, lets do it for all sports. Screw everyone. Lets let the a$$hole coaches and biased media, arbitrarily decide every year who is gonna play in the Super Bowl. NBA Championship? Lets poll people in September. Lets just wipe away nearly every single team right out of the gates before the ball is even tipped. Great plan. Edited January 15, 2008 by GWPFFL BrianW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockerbraves Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 Funny, you're the only one here defending the BCS, the rest of us actually would like to see a playoff. Could it be, you like the system because it's the only system where your team could lose to 2 unranked teams, and STILL play in a National Championship game at home? You LOVE the system. It's worked out twice for LSU (only team to do it) so absolutely, you love it. Chalk your name as one of Jim Delaney's puppets? You are right about the BCS. It's no coincidence that the SEC and especially LSU has finally started to win NC's ever since the origination of the BCS. Prior to that the Big 10 had convinced us they were a good conference and were worthy opponents to the PAC10 each year. IMO Pete Carrol & USC will probably be leading the charge for the PAC 10 to push the Rose Bowl towards a playoff now that the SEC has taken away their little bitch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted January 15, 2008 Author Share Posted January 15, 2008 I can certainly understand why you are absolutely amazed. Apparently you don't follow golf much? An individual player can't choose to play in a US Open. If you have qualified then you may certainly chose to play or not ... or are you saying that there is a committee voting on who the participants will be? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockerbraves Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 If you have qualified then you may certainly chose to play or not ... or are you saying that there is a committee voting on who the participants will be? You are correct the US Open is similiar to the BCS in that they have a committee who sets up the rules of competition. Example a non BCS team can still participate although they must qualify aka Hawaii/Boise State while the BCS teams are exempt from this stage of qualifying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted January 15, 2008 Author Share Posted January 15, 2008 (edited) You are correct the US Open is similiar to the BCS in that they have a committee who sets up the rules of competition. Example a non BCS team can still participate although they must qualify aka Hawaii/Boise State while the BCS teams are exempt from this stage of qualifying. Rules of competition = any golfer that has qualified can choose to play or not. Explain how that translates to the BCS voters picking 2 teams. On the one hand we have more than 2 dozen golfers that have qualified for the Open and have chosen to participate. Each golfer has his own destiny in his hands ... if he plays well enough he can win the championship. He doesn't have to hope that he plays well enough AND has a commitee vote to award him the tournament win. If he does not win it is because he did not play as well as the golfer who did win. Sometimes there are even 2 or more golfers that played well enough to win and instead of voters deciding who wins they either play sudden death, another full round, or a set number of holes depending on the specific format. And they continue to play until there is just ONE winner. On the other hand we have a bunch of sports writers deciding which two teams they would like to see in the bogus NC game. If you think those are even remotely similiar then I doubt you can the tell difference between black and white. Edited January 15, 2008 by Grits and Shins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.