Re: Thank you BCS!
 

first few paragraphs are an exercise in fallacy.

Re: Thank you BCS!
 

[ QUOTE ]

If you add a playoff after bowl season, you still get the best teams to play for the championship.

[/ QUOTE ]
a 4 team playoff just shifts the argument about whos number 2 to whos number 5
nobody will ever be satisfied

Re: Thank you BCS!
 

Plus One seems like it would be very easy to implement at this point. You make two of the BCS bowls National Semifinals (on a rotating basis) and then have the winners play in the Championship the following week. They've already got the Championship a week later now, just need to change the structure.

Re: Thank you BCS!
 

[ QUOTE ]
What I think is hilarious about this quote is the first part, crediting the BCS for "giving" us the Boise/Oklahoma game. As if games like that only happen because of this magical system.

[/ QUOTE ]

No way in hell the Big 12 champ plays the WAC champ under the old system.

Re: Thank you BCS!
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If you add a playoff after bowl season, you still get the best teams to play for the championship.

[/ QUOTE ]
a 4 team playoff just shifts the argument about whos number 2 to whos number 5
nobody will ever be satisfied

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. Boise State would be excluded from the top 4 despite being undefeated. I think 8 is the minimum to avoid real arguments.

Re: Thank you BCS!
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What I think is hilarious about this quote is the first part, crediting the BCS for "giving" us the Boise/Oklahoma game. As if games like that only happen because of this magical system.

[/ QUOTE ]

No way in hell the Big 12 champ plays the WAC champ under the old system.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not the point. You're trading one backwards-ass system for another. Boise and OU, not the BCS, gave us a great game. Boise and OU could still play if there was a playoff.

Re: Thank you BCS!
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If you add a playoff after bowl season, you still get the best teams to play for the championship.

[/ QUOTE ]
a 4 team playoff just shifts the argument about whos number 2 to whos number 5
nobody will ever be satisfied

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but #5 doesn't have as legit a gripe about being totally left out as #3.

This is why I don't feel too bad for bubble teams that miss the NCAA tournament. It's hard to complain that you got snubbed when there are 34 at-large teams. If you can't make a cut of thirty-freaking-four, then it's kinda tough to claim you're a really legit contender.

(This logic sort of applies to my views on affirmative action as well. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] )

Re: Thank you BCS!
 

[ QUOTE ]
first few paragraphs are an exercise in fallacy.

[/ QUOTE ]

agreed

Re: Thank you BCS!
 

I'd like to thank the BCS for the Sugar Bowl. I'd much rather watch Notre Dame get their asses kicked again than see two premiere teams play each other.

Sadly I don't actually know if I'm serious or not.

Re: Thank you BCS!
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What I think is hilarious about this quote is the first part, crediting the BCS for "giving" us the Boise/Oklahoma game. As if games like that only happen because of this magical system.

[/ QUOTE ]

No way in hell the Big 12 champ plays the WAC champ under the old system.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not the point. You're trading one backwards-ass system for another. Boise and OU, not the BCS, gave us a great game. Boise and OU could still play if there was a playoff.

[/ QUOTE ]

The choice isn't between the BCS and a playoff. The choice is between one "backward-ass system" for another. The fact that a playoff is better than the BCS doesn't change the fact that the BCS is better than the old system. Nor does it change the fact that the powers that be simply do not want a playoff. Every year at this time, people on the internet, on sports radio, and on TV argue for a playoff. The fact that the NCAA has, thus far, ignored all those pleas should be a pretty big sign that a playoff isn't in the forecast for the near future.