|
|
#11
12-05-2006, 01:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 6 team playoff
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I don't think you'll find anyone here that disagrees with you that we need a playoff. [/ QUOTE ] I disagree. I like the current system, it makes regular season games meaningful, unlike every other sport in America. How exciting would the Michigan-OSU game have been if both teams knew they were going to make the playoffs, win or lose? [/ QUOTE ] No it doesn't. It makes more regular season games meaningless. Look at the last few weeks of the season. The only games that had any meaning were, USC vs. ND/UCLA and Fla vs Ark. All the other games were meaningless as far the national championship is concerned. If, for example the Big East, Big 12 and ACC champion received automatic bids to a playoff then there would have been many more meaningful games. 
|
|
#12
12-05-2006, 02:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 6 team playoff
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I don't think you'll find anyone here that disagrees with you that we need a playoff. [/ QUOTE ] I disagree. I like the current system, it makes regular season games meaningful, unlike every other sport in America. How exciting would the Michigan-OSU game have been if both teams knew they were going to make the playoffs, win or lose? [/ QUOTE ] No it doesn't. It makes more regular season games meaningless. Look at the last few weeks of the season. The only games that had any meaning were, USC vs. ND/UCLA and Fla vs Ark. All the other games were meaningless as far the national championship is concerned. If, for example the Big East, Big 12 and ACC champion received automatic bids to a playoff then there would have been many more meaningful games. [/ QUOTE ] Your reasoning makes the USC/UCLA game meaningless b/c USC would have qualified for the playoffs even with a loss, as the Pac-10 champ. This is probably the worst argument I've ever heard for a playoff system.
|
|
#13
12-05-2006, 02:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 6 team playoff
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think you'll find anyone here that disagrees with you that we need a playoff. [/ QUOTE ] Do actually read this forum or just post?
|
|
#14
12-05-2006, 02:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 6 team playoff
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I don't think you'll find anyone here that disagrees with you that we need a playoff. [/ QUOTE ] Wrong. [/ QUOTE ] well, everyone knows I disagree I, actually, disagree with the notion that a national champ has to be crowned. It seems to me to be just away to lable 118 teams as losers. I'd like it all to go back to early 90s or late 80s set-up. Bowl games were less numerous. Conference tie-ins ruled. then again, I'd like to have the Big8 and SWC back and 10 teams in the Big10.
|
|
#15
12-05-2006, 02:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 6 team playoff
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I don't think you'll find anyone here that disagrees with you that we need a playoff. [/ QUOTE ] Wrong. [/ QUOTE ] well, everyone knows I disagree I, actually, disagree with the notion that a national champ has to be crowned. It seems to me to be just away to lable 118 teams as losers. I'd like it all to go back to early 90s or late 80s set-up. Bowl games were less numerous. Conference tie-ins ruled. then again, I'd like to have the Big8 and SWC back and 10 teams in the Big10. [/ QUOTE ] I agree. It's not about declaring a winner. It's about labeling all the other teams losers. Let's quit keeping score. WTF
|
|
#16
12-05-2006, 02:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 6 team playoff
[ QUOTE ]
Your reasoning makes the USC/UCLA game meaningless b/c USC would have qualified for the playoffs even with a loss, as the Pac-10 champ. This is probably the worst argument I've ever heard for a playoff system. [/ QUOTE ] wouldn't SC have been playing for seeding?
|
|
#17
12-05-2006, 02:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 6 team playoff
Whether you have 4, or 6, or 8, or whatever number of teams, there is still going to be controversy over which teams get in and which teams don't. The fewer teams you have in, the louder that controversy is. The more teams you let in, the more meaningless the regular season becomes.
In principle, I like Assani's idea of have the number of teams in a playoff be flexible. But it will never happen because it won't make enough money for the schools. And if they were really doing their job, this year they could probably just not have a championship game and hand the trophy to OSU. They're the clear number one, and they're the only undefeated team from a major conference. I think it's good that there is some variety between sports. Every other sport has a relatively insignificant regular season, followed by a series of flipaments. College football is unique amongst other American sports because the regular season actually means something.
|
|
#18
12-05-2006, 03:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 6 team playoff
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I don't think you'll find anyone here that disagrees with you that we need a playoff. [/ QUOTE ] I disagree. I like the current system, it makes regular season games meaningful, unlike every other sport in America. How exciting would the Michigan-OSU game have been if both teams knew they were going to make the playoffs, win or lose? [/ QUOTE ]Under my suggestion of having a playoff but not having a set number of teams, teams will definitely fear that one loss could indeed keep them out.
|
|
#19
12-05-2006, 03:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 6 team playoff
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I don't think you'll find anyone here that disagrees with you that we need a playoff. [/ QUOTE ] Wrong. [/ QUOTE ]yes, I see that now.
|
|
#20
12-05-2006, 03:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 6 team playoff
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I don't think you'll find anyone here that disagrees with you that we need a playoff. [/ QUOTE ] Do actually read this forum or just post? [/ QUOTE ]I have stayed away from this debate until now, so I'm just learning people's views. I assumed that 99% of the people here would support a playoff just because I thought it was obviously needed.....I guess I was wrong.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
