OU over OSU in Stillwater (i.e. BCS mess continues)
12-01-2008, 10:51 AM
#62
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Near The High Five in Dallas
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How is it any less bullshit to simply discard the lowest ranked team and then go H2H on the top 2?
There isn't a fair way to settle a three way tie like this and I may be wrong, but it seems that most people's opinion on what is a good method or not a good method just happen to correlate with how their team fares under the method.
12-01-2008, 10:52 AM
#63
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Houston
Posts: 1,876
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it a bad thing to hit receivers in stride to where they can run after the catch? 
Besides, does anyone outside of Harrell dink and dunk more than Cart McCoy?
How much does McCoy get on YAC? I'd be astonished if it was meaningfully lower than Bradford's percentage.
And Texas is less talented? What happened to all the top 5 recruiting classes that Mack brought in? I do think OU is the better team and has slightly more talent, but it's kind of laughable to think McCoy is out there playing with a bunch of scrubs or something.
Besides, does anyone outside of Harrell dink and dunk more than Cart McCoy?
How much does McCoy get on YAC? I'd be astonished if it was meaningfully lower than Bradford's percentage.
And Texas is less talented? What happened to all the top 5 recruiting classes that Mack brought in? I do think OU is the better team and has slightly more talent, but it's kind of laughable to think McCoy is out there playing with a bunch of scrubs or something.
UT has no TE, and 2 considerably less talented starting receivers.
12-01-2008, 10:54 AM
#64
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Near The High Five in Dallas
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heh, it's really a world of glass house dwellers here in the Big12 South what with aTm and UT both deriding each other in their school fight songs and OU/UT animus...not to mention Tech fans and their lack of class...
12-01-2008, 10:56 AM
#65
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Near The High Five in Dallas
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2. I agree that OU is the better team and has more talent...just pointing out that even though Cart has inferior weapons than OU, he certainly isn't playing with scrubs.
12-01-2008, 10:58 AM
#66
Texas Director
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Deer Park, Texas
Posts: 4,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The BCS is better than what was in place prior to it's formation, which was basically two opinion polls as to who the NC was. A playoff format of 16 teams would be ideal and would not cheapen the regular season. It would give a lot of teams the opportunity to play their way into the 16-team tournament. In a scenario as with the Big 12 South it would still give all three teams a chance to play for it all.
There is a month off between the last game and the start of the bowls. That's plenty of time to use the current bowls in the playoff system, thus not losing the tradition of the bowls. Seed #1 vs. #16 and so on and to get down to one final, undisputed champion. Think of the interest, money that would be generated. This is so simple it's ridiculous.
Once the BCS contract is up in a couple of years a playoff system is a must.
One other issue that needs to be addressed: The Big 10 and Pac 10 both don't have CCG's. That gives them an unfair advantage in that they don't have a top ranked team that loses in a potential CCG like happens in the Big 12, SEC, ACC, etc. IMO all conferences should either have a championship game or none should.
There is a month off between the last game and the start of the bowls. That's plenty of time to use the current bowls in the playoff system, thus not losing the tradition of the bowls. Seed #1 vs. #16 and so on and to get down to one final, undisputed champion. Think of the interest, money that would be generated. This is so simple it's ridiculous.
Once the BCS contract is up in a couple of years a playoff system is a must.
One other issue that needs to be addressed: The Big 10 and Pac 10 both don't have CCG's. That gives them an unfair advantage in that they don't have a top ranked team that loses in a potential CCG like happens in the Big 12, SEC, ACC, etc. IMO all conferences should either have a championship game or none should.
12-01-2008, 11:15 AM
#68
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Near The High Five in Dallas
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The BCS is better than what was in place prior to it's formation, which was basically two opinion polls as to who the NC was. A playoff format of 16 teams would be ideal and would not cheapen the regular season. It would give a lot of teams the opportunity to play their way into the 16-team tournament. In a scenario as with the Big 12 South it would still give all three teams a chance to play for it all.
There is a month off between the last game and the start of the bowls. That's plenty of time to use the current bowls in the playoff system, thus not losing the tradition of the bowls. Seed #1 vs. #16 and so on and to get down to one final, undisputed champion. Think of the interest, money that would be generated. This is so simple it's ridiculous.
Once the BCS contract is up in a couple of years a playoff system is a must.
One other issue that needs to be addressed: The Big 10 and Pac 10 both don't have CCG's. That gives them an unfair advantage in that they don't have a top ranked team that loses in a potential CCG like happens in the Big 12, SEC, ACC, etc. IMO all conferences should either have a championship game or none should.
There is a month off between the last game and the start of the bowls. That's plenty of time to use the current bowls in the playoff system, thus not losing the tradition of the bowls. Seed #1 vs. #16 and so on and to get down to one final, undisputed champion. Think of the interest, money that would be generated. This is so simple it's ridiculous.
Once the BCS contract is up in a couple of years a playoff system is a must.
One other issue that needs to be addressed: The Big 10 and Pac 10 both don't have CCG's. That gives them an unfair advantage in that they don't have a top ranked team that loses in a potential CCG like happens in the Big 12, SEC, ACC, etc. IMO all conferences should either have a championship game or none should.
2. How much interest would there really be in say Boise/PSU or Ball State/USC? I mean, are UT and OU fans going to watch those? I see a playoff doing the same things to CFB as it does to the NFL:
- Cheapening the regular season...how horrible is Week 17 NFL football with teams resting starters? How exciting would the Big12 title game be if Stoops sat Bradford to save him for the playoffs?
- Not being very compelling to nonfans of the specific teams until the Super Bowl
12-01-2008, 11:29 AM
#70
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Near The High Five in Dallas
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another fascinating possibility is that Mack Brown could end this season with a national championship or a part of one. Then he'd have more national titles than his one (1) conference titles in ~25 years of being a head coach.
I guess if that happens, even UT haters will have to admit that Mack is the most successful coach to have only won one (1) conference title since he'd have multiple national titles to go along with his multiple recruiting titles.
I guess if that happens, even UT haters will have to admit that Mack is the most successful coach to have only won one (1) conference title since he'd have multiple national titles to go along with his multiple recruiting titles.
12-01-2008, 11:36 AM
#71
Texas Director
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Deer Park, Texas
Posts: 4,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, to clarify, you think that everything is fine with the current BCS system and you don't want a playoff? Do you not like the NCAA 64-team basketball tournament? Does it cheapen the regular season? Everyone seems to love that format and it creates a lot of intrigue come tournament time every year.
I just threw out a 16 team playoff, but if/when a football playoff is put into place it will most likely be an eight team playoff. This gives a lot of teams a chance to play their way into the championship game on the field and not via public opinion or a computer. I think it would be cool to have teams like Utah, Boise St., Ball St. TCU or Cincinnati potentially in the mix. How anyone can't agree with that is beyond me.
I just threw out a 16 team playoff, but if/when a football playoff is put into place it will most likely be an eight team playoff. This gives a lot of teams a chance to play their way into the championship game on the field and not via public opinion or a computer. I think it would be cool to have teams like Utah, Boise St., Ball St. TCU or Cincinnati potentially in the mix. How anyone can't agree with that is beyond me.
1. How does a 16 team playoff not cheapen the regular season? Just in the Big12 South, all four relevant teams get in...that doesn't make those regular season games less meaningful?
2. How much interest would there really be in say Boise/PSU or Ball State/USC? I mean, are UT and OU fans going to watch those? I see a playoff doing the same things to CFB as it does to the NFL:
- Cheapening the regular season...how horrible is Week 17 NFL football with teams resting starters? How exciting would the Big12 title game be if Stoops sat Bradford to save him for the playoffs?
- Not being very compelling to nonfans of the specific teams until the Super Bowl
2. How much interest would there really be in say Boise/PSU or Ball State/USC? I mean, are UT and OU fans going to watch those? I see a playoff doing the same things to CFB as it does to the NFL:
- Cheapening the regular season...how horrible is Week 17 NFL football with teams resting starters? How exciting would the Big12 title game be if Stoops sat Bradford to save him for the playoffs?
- Not being very compelling to nonfans of the specific teams until the Super Bowl
12-01-2008, 11:43 AM
#72
Texas Director
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Deer Park, Texas
Posts: 4,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another fascinating possibility is that Mack Brown could end this season with a national championship or a part of one. Then he'd have more national titles than his one (1) conference titles in ~25 years of being a head coach.
I guess if that happens, even UT haters will have to admit that Mack is the most successful coach to have only won one (1) conference title since he'd have multiple national titles to go along with his multiple recruiting titles.
I guess if that happens, even UT haters will have to admit that Mack is the most successful coach to have only won one (1) conference title since he'd have multiple national titles to go along with his multiple recruiting titles.
12-01-2008, 12:14 PM
#73
Banned
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Houston
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just threw out a 16 team playoff, but if/when a football playoff is put into place it will most likely be an eight team playoff. This gives a lot of teams a chance to play their way into the championship game on the field and not via public opinion or a computer. I think it would be cool to have teams like Utah, Boise St., Ball St. TCU or Cincinnati potentially in the mix. How anyone can't agree with that is beyond me.
12-01-2008, 12:26 PM
#74
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Near The High Five in Dallas
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, to clarify, you think that everything is fine with the current BCS system and you don't want a playoff? Do you not like the NCAA 64-team basketball tournament? Does it cheapen the regular season? Everyone seems to love that format and it creates a lot of intrigue come tournament time every year.
I just threw out a 16 team playoff, but if/when a football playoff is put into place it will most likely be an eight team playoff. This gives a lot of teams a chance to play their way into the championship game on the field and not via public opinion or a computer. I think it would be cool to have teams like Utah, Boise St., Ball St. TCU or Cincinnati potentially in the mix. How anyone can't agree with that is beyond me.
I just threw out a 16 team playoff, but if/when a football playoff is put into place it will most likely be an eight team playoff. This gives a lot of teams a chance to play their way into the championship game on the field and not via public opinion or a computer. I think it would be cool to have teams like Utah, Boise St., Ball St. TCU or Cincinnati potentially in the mix. How anyone can't agree with that is beyond me.
And I love the NCAA Basketball tournament. You know why? It is unique. There's absolutely nothing else like it. People who aren't even hoops fans like it just for the format...48 games in the first four days. It's great. The CFB regular season is unique, too. Three months of playoff football...every week matters.
However, you can't play 4 football games in a week...
To me, I foresee a CFB playoff turning out much more like the NFL playoffs than the NCAA Basketball Tournament. Not a great deal of interest outside of the two teams fans until the final (Super Bowl). Again, are people going to give a **** about Penn State vs Boise? No.
And you say you want the small schools to have a chance like OU victims Cincy and TCU...but with 8 team playoff, they are shut out.
12-01-2008, 12:45 PM
#75
Bottom line is the system is flawed and you could make a case for Texas, Tech or OU. Is OU the clear-cut, more deserving out of the three teams? Absolutely not.
I know the rules were in place beforehand, but why should be highest BCS ranking determine who plays for a conference championship? Shouldn't something from within the conference be more appropriate to determine that? I can see using the highest ranked BCS team to determine bowl slots, but not to determine who represents a conference in a championship game.
Bottom line is the BCS is not a good system for college football. A playoff is needed so any arguments could be settled on the field and not by some computer. However, as far as the on the field argument goes between Texas and OU, Texas DID settle it on the field with the Sooners and left no doubt who was the better team.
Question to you Sooner fans. If Texas had received a higher BCS ranking yesterday and was going to the Big 12 championship game over OU what would have been your thoughts? Would you say it was justified, fair and the right decision? Can you guys answer that honestly and objectively?
I know the rules were in place beforehand, but why should be highest BCS ranking determine who plays for a conference championship? Shouldn't something from within the conference be more appropriate to determine that? I can see using the highest ranked BCS team to determine bowl slots, but not to determine who represents a conference in a championship game.
Bottom line is the BCS is not a good system for college football. A playoff is needed so any arguments could be settled on the field and not by some computer. However, as far as the on the field argument goes between Texas and OU, Texas DID settle it on the field with the Sooners and left no doubt who was the better team.
Question to you Sooner fans. If Texas had received a higher BCS ranking yesterday and was going to the Big 12 championship game over OU what would have been your thoughts? Would you say it was justified, fair and the right decision? Can you guys answer that honestly and objectively?
And you are right, if Texas would have got the nod then the Sooners would have been crying about it. Your constant 45-35 rant was an embarrasment to everyone in Texas. We should have flown an airplane over your game against a pathetic aggie team with your lost to Tech.
Oklahoma didnt create the BCS and neither did Texas but we have to deal with it so quit bitchin!
Personally I would like to see OU & Texas go at it again for the Championship. I bet we would smoke your ***!
BOOMER!!
CT
12-01-2008, 12:53 PM
#76
Texas Director
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Deer Park, Texas
Posts: 4,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Todd, you're definitely in the minority on this one. Everyone in America wants there to be a playoff in college football but you apparantly. I was only using some of the small teams I mentioned as an example. I wan't saying to put all of them in an eight team playoff this year. It would do nothing but generate more excitement and interest in CFB and is sorely needed. This year is a perfect example as to why. It's too bad that both Texas and Tech are on the outside looking in, as it would be if OU had been left out. It cuts both ways.
12-01-2008, 01:05 PM
#77
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Near The High Five in Dallas
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Todd, you're definitely in the minority on this one. Everyone in America wants there to be a playoff in college football but you apparantly. I was only using some of the small teams I mentioned as an example. I wan't saying to put all of them in an eight team playoff this year. It would do nothing but generate more excitement and interest in CFB and is sorely needed. This year is a perfect example as to why. It's too bad that both Texas and Tech are on the outside looking in, as it would be if OU had been left out. It cuts both ways.
When most folks think about a CFB playoff, they focus solely on the positives and not on the negatives. They usually frame it like you did, comparing it to March Madness when there simply isn't going to be the same interest because the format is so different.
I just like the current system cause I can watch three months of playoff football and have 10-12 games every week that impact my teams chances at a BCS bowl or National Title.
You want a national title game berth? It's simple...play a real schedule and go 12-0...then you are in. UT fans want a title shot...tough ****, you lost. USC fans...tough ****, you lost. Win your games.
If once a decade you have a scenario like 04, then oh well, run the table next year.
12-01-2008, 01:13 PM
#78
I disagree Sooner Todd even though I love the name and avatar!
It has to be a playoff, this stops the crying in both areas. Going 12-0 doesnt guarantee you a spot.
Utah, Boise State and Ball State are 12-0 but they aint going to the party.
I was admiring you before you posted that. Now I am questioning your commitment to the Sooner fan club. Are you a Sooner fan or a plant from the evil Longhorn camp?
CT
It has to be a playoff, this stops the crying in both areas. Going 12-0 doesnt guarantee you a spot.
Utah, Boise State and Ball State are 12-0 but they aint going to the party.
I was admiring you before you posted that. Now I am questioning your commitment to the Sooner fan club. Are you a Sooner fan or a plant from the evil Longhorn camp?
CT
12-01-2008, 01:26 PM
#79
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Near The High Five in Dallas
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I disagree Sooner Todd even though I love the name and avatar!
It has to be a playoff, this stops the crying in both areas. Going 12-0 doesnt guarantee you a spot.
Utah, Boise State and Ball State are 12-0 but they aint going to the party.
I was admiring you before you posted that. Now I am questioning your commitment to the Sooner fan club. Are you a Sooner fan or a plant from the evil Longhorn camp?
CT
It has to be a playoff, this stops the crying in both areas. Going 12-0 doesnt guarantee you a spot.
Utah, Boise State and Ball State are 12-0 but they aint going to the party.
I was admiring you before you posted that. Now I am questioning your commitment to the Sooner fan club. Are you a Sooner fan or a plant from the evil Longhorn camp?
CT
And Utah etc. I did state "play a real schedule" so those teams were accounted for.
My question is this though...what's wrong with all the crying? What is wrong with having a system that is unique. Proponents of a playoff say things like "it will generate more interest and excitement" as if it's some absolute point of fact. CFB as it stands right now is pretty exciting week in and week out and there is no lack of interest both among fans and among media.
Are the NFL playoffs exciting? Not really. Do we really even remember who played who in the first round by the time the Super Bowl rolls around? Not really. Now do we remember who won UT/OU, OU/TTU, TTU/UT? Will we remember who wins the Big12 and SEC title games? Yeah we will. I'd say that interest and excitement can be somewhat measured by how well we remember the so-called "big" games.