• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Is There Any Doubt Okla St Will Be #2?

IAppreciateIt said:
That game became relatively important (in hindsight) because of the playoff! You have just inadvertently argued against your own point.

The NFL was saved by fantasy football.
Click to expand...

No, I haven't, you're just nuts!!! The BCS has made the regular season so meaningful, the last week of the season had absolutely no baring on who played in the title game. That became obvious when it was shown that OSU could've beaten Oklahoma 100-0 and it wouldn't have changed things. Yep, the BCS really makes the rest of the season so much more meaningful than other sports.
 
TBR said:
Playoff's aren't meant to find the team that was the best throughout the season. No way UConn basketball had a better season last year than everyone else, but they were better when it counted. The 64 teams with the best seasons make the NCAA tournament, but the one with that performs the best (and/or is the luckiest) in the tournament wins the big prize (and we all know that that isn't a high seed).

Frankly, it's all about compelling entertainment, and I think a 4 or 8 team tournament wouldn't make the regular season any less compelling but would make the post season much more compelling.
Click to expand...

No, playoffs were meant to make money. That's because they are compelling, but it doesn't change the root cause. The champion should go to the most deserving team. Single-elimination playoffs (especially big ones) do not do that, as you admit. Therefore, they are a poor choice to determine a champion. That's my argument in a nutshell -- imo, last year's NCAA tournament is evidence.

You are wrong about your last point, because we've seen it -- the NCAA has absolutely killed regular season college basketball (and even conference tournaments) with the watering down of the NCAA tourney. But even then, it seems pretty obvious that a 4 team NCAA tourney would make the season infinitely more important -- the UNC-Kentucky game only had a TV rating of 2 -- and that's because, in the long run, the game was pretty meaningless.
 
IAppreciateIt said:
No, playoffs were meant to make money. That's because they are compelling, but it doesn't change the root cause. The champion should go to the most deserving team. Single-elimination playoffs (especially big ones) do not do that, as you admit. Therefore, they are a poor choice to determine a champion. That's my argument in a nutshell -- imo, last year's NCAA tournament is evidence.

You are wrong about your last point, because we've seen it -- the NCAA has absolutely killed regular season college basketball (and even conference tournaments) with the watering down of the NCAA tourney. But even then, it seems pretty obvious that a 4 team NCAA tourney would make the season infinitely more important -- the UNC-Kentucky game only had a TV rating of 2 -- and that's because, in the long run, the game was pretty meaningless.
Click to expand...

Uh, I proposed a 8 or 4 team playoff. The former would make the regular season slightly less compelling while the latter would have pretty much no impact.

I agree that a 64-68 team football playoff would blow hard, but no one wants that.
 
TBR said:
Uh, I proposed a 8 or 4 team playoff. The former would make the regular season slightly less compelling while the latter would have pretty much no impact.

I agree that a 64-68 team football playoff would blow hard, but no one wants that.
Click to expand...

Right, that would be nuts and pretty much impossible. The teams that would've made a 4 team playoff this year would've been an undefeated team and 3 teams with only 1 loss. Yeah the would really water down the regular season alright. An eight team playoff might include (depending on the season) one or two 2 loss teams, but still wouldn't water down the regular season to any noticeable extent.
 
With an 8 team playoff, every big game last weekend matters. Oregon-UCLA play for a spot in the playoffs, Mich St-Wisc play for a spot in the playoffs, UGA plays for a spot in the playoffs(LSU would be in), OU-OSU would be for a spot in the playoffs and VT-Clemson would be for a spot in the playoffs and whatever the hell was going with the Big East would have mattered. With the current system, the results of those games did not matter at all with regards to the national championship game. That would have made last weekend so much more exciting.

Note: Scenario assumes 6 BCS conference champions get auto bids with 2 at-large teams.
 
TBR said:
Uh, I proposed a 8 or 4 team playoff. The former would make the regular season slightly less compelling while the latter would have pretty much no impact.

I agree that a 64-68 team football playoff would blow hard, but no one wants that.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I thought you were talking about the NCAA basketball tourney. I agree that a smaller playoff (four team) wouldn't make a huge difference. I support a plus-one (not the four team playoff, but a championship game decided after the initial BCS bowls). Eight team is unnecessary -- how often are there going to be over four teams who deserve a shot at the title after the season?

The biggest thing is that people keep looking at it from the perspective of Oklahoma Sta or Stanford -- but like I said earlier, the team it's unfair to is LSU. They shouldn't have to beat anyone else to be the champion, let alone have to beat two or three more teams. Not after having the season they had.
 
BBDeac said:
With an 8 team playoff, every big game last weekend matters. Oregon-UCLA play for a spot in the playoffs, Mich St-Wisc play for a spot in the playoffs, UGA plays for a spot in the playoffs(LSU would be in), OU-OSU would be for a spot in the playoffs and VT-Clemson would be for a spot in the playoffs and whatever the hell was going with the Big East would have mattered. With the current system, the results of those games did not matter at all with regards to the national championship game. That would have made last weekend so much more exciting.

Note: Scenario assumes 6 BCS conference champions get auto bids with 2 at-large teams.
Click to expand...

If something like that would happen, the NCAA would have to take away the Big East's automatic bid. The ACC is not good, the Big East is a complete joke of a BCS football conference.
 
IAppreciateIt said:
Sorry, I thought you were talking about the NCAA basketball tourney. I agree that a smaller playoff (four team) wouldn't make a huge difference. I support a plus-one (not the four team playoff, but a championship game decided after the initial BCS bowls). Eight team is unnecessary -- how often are there going to be over four teams who deserve a shot at the title after the season?

The biggest thing is that people keep looking at it from the perspective of Oklahoma Sta or Stanford -- but like I said earlier, the team it's unfair to is LSU. They shouldn't have to beat anyone else to be the champion, let alone have to beat two or three more teams. Not after having the season they had.
Click to expand...

I'd be good with a 4 team or plus one playoff. I disagree about LSU. Winning in the playoffs or title game is part of having a great season. The Patriots went 18-0, but lost the Super Bowl, they didn't finish it off so it will never be truly considered a great season. If LSU is as great as they seem, they shouldn't have a problem winning a 4 team playoff. That's sports, stepping up when everything is on the line. If Bama beats LSU by a field goal, people will argue LSU still has as much right to the title as Bama, but Bama would've won when the most was on the line. Just how it is.
 
IAppreciateIt said:
Sorry, I thought you were talking about the NCAA basketball tourney. I agree that a smaller playoff (four team) wouldn't make a huge difference. I support a plus-one (not the four team playoff, but a championship game decided after the initial BCS bowls). Eight team is unnecessary -- how often are there going to be over four teams who deserve a shot at the title after the season?

The biggest thing is that people keep looking at it from the perspective of Oklahoma Sta or Stanford -- but like I said earlier, the team it's unfair to is LSU. They shouldn't have to beat anyone else to be the champion, let alone have to beat two or three more teams. Not after having the season they had.
Click to expand...

I was, and I wasn't. I think the basketball tournament should be smaller (32 teams probably), but it is much preferable to a single game. That's kind of what I was saying.
 
Sports are about having fun and adding artificial meaning to the inherently empty world in which we live. NCAA tournament is a terrible way to determine the best basketball team, but it's damn fun. I think it would be less fun if it were reduced to 32 teams. Keep it at 64
 
OliveGardenDeac said:
Sports are about having fun and adding artificial meaning to the inherently empty world in which we live. NCAA tournament is a terrible way to determine the best basketball team, but it's damn fun. I think it would be less fun if it were reduced to 32 teams. Keep it at 64
Click to expand...

I agree with your general point, but think the first round (well, 2nd round now) sucks.
 
OliveGardenDeac said:
Sports are about having fun and adding artificial meaning to the inherently empty world in which we live. NCAA tournament is a terrible way to determine the best basketball team, but it's damn fun. I think it would be less fun if it were reduced to 32 teams. Keep it at 64
Click to expand...

This is the legit counter-point. I personally disagree because imo, the excitement of one large post-season tournament is simply cannibalized from the regular season. The entire college football season, start to finish, is awesome. That's one of the reasons why it's probably my favorite sport.
 
liveanddiedeac said:
No, I haven't, you're just nuts!!! The BCS has made the regular season so meaningful, the last week of the season had absolutely no baring on who played in the title game. That became obvious when it was shown that OSU could've beaten Oklahoma 100-0 and it wouldn't have changed things. Yep, the BCS really makes the rest of the season so much more meaningful than other sports.
Click to expand...

If Okie State had lost to say, K-State, the last week of the season would have mattered. They didn't. They lost to Iowa Fucking State.

Why is this so hard for people to accept? Iowa State.
 
RollWave35 said:
Basically.

Everybody saying "Alabama had their shot!" ignores that Oklahoma State had their shot. Keep a 24-7 second half lead against a 29-point underdog and you're playing for the national championship. It's not like Alabama was leaping over teams that were winning out. Teams ahead of them lost after they did. That's the way college football has always been. You lose, you fall. The later you lose, the harder it is to get back to the top. People act like this is some amazingly new idea.
Click to expand...

Alabama fell 1 spot in the polls after losing in Week 10 at home in an ugly snoozer of a game. So the only amazingly new idea I saw was that a team could lose at home late in the season and not fall in the polls... which I attribute to SEC bias.
 
Brendan207 said:
Alabama fell 1 spot in the polls after losing in Week 10 at home in an ugly snoozer of a game. So the only amazingly new idea I saw was that a team could lose at home late in the season and not fall in the polls... which I attribute to SEC bias.
Click to expand...
They lost to #1 by 3 in overtime as opposed to a 29-point underdog after having a 3-score lead. Any undefeated team would have been above them (minus Houston) and the other teams also choked - and in most cases, choked a lot worse.
 
BBDeac said:
BradEdwards_BCS Brad Edwards
If every voter who had OKST at 4, 5 or 6 would've put them at 3 instead, final BCS avg would be Bama .942, OKST .938
Click to expand...

When the BCS eventually goes away - and it will - will Brad Edwards still have a job?
 
IAppreciateIt said:
This is the legit counter-point. I personally disagree because imo, the excitement of one large post-season tournament is simply cannibalized from the regular season. The entire college football season, start to finish, is awesome. That's one of the reasons why it's probably my favorite sport.
Click to expand...


That's where you're wrong. The start of the college football season is awesome. But it has, by far, the worst finish of any major sport. Year after year, the end of the college football season leaves people unsatisfied.

I would argue that a 4, 6, or 8 team playoff actually adds excitement to the regular season of college football. As it is now, the system actually diminishes the amount of interest in the game as the season progresses.
 
Brendan207 said:
Alabama fell 1 spot in the polls after losing in Week 10 at home in an ugly snoozer of a game. So the only amazingly new idea I saw was that a team could lose at home late in the season and not fall in the polls... which I attribute to SEC bias.
Click to expand...

Why is a 6-6 game an "ugly" snoozer. You had to the two best defenses in the country on display.

By contrast Okie State lost in spectacular fashion - allowing a shitty team to rattle off 24 or more unanswered points to be upset.

Again I'm amazed so many people think Okie State got jobbed. How about Stanford? At least they lost to Oregon.
 
IAppreciateIt said:
This is the legit counter-point. I personally disagree because imo, the excitement of one large post-season tournament is simply cannibalized from the regular season. The entire college football season, start to finish, is awesome. That's one of the reasons why it's probably my favorite sport.
Click to expand...

Disagree on the finish. It is anything but awesome.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top