We don't have a playoff

We don't have a playoff

Post by Carl Ban » Mon, 08 Dec 2003 13:54:18


Three roughly equal one-loss teams, too close to each other for anyone
or anything to differentiate who's performed better with any degree of
confidence.  One of these teams will be arbitrarily denied a chance at
the MNC.

And this is the system you anti-playoff people think is so great and
wondergful?  GMAFB.  We don't have a playoff, we don't have a national
champion, but we do have a system that regularly and maliciously
screws teams out of a deserved chance to win a NC.  That sucks.  You
all suck to.  I hope you all die.

--
CARL BANKS

 
 
 

We don't have a playoff

Post by T O' » Mon, 08 Dec 2003 14:01:42


Quote:
> Three roughly equal one-loss teams, too close to each other for anyone
> or anything to differentiate who's performed better with any degree of
> confidence.  One of these teams will be arbitrarily denied a chance at
> the MNC.

> And this is the system you anti-playoff people think is so great and
> wondergful?  GMAFB.  We don't have a playoff,

nope.

Quote:
> we don't have a national champion,

nope.

Quote:
> but we do have a system that regularly and maliciously
> screws teams out of a deserved chance to win a NC.

Again... nope.

Quote:
> That sucks.  You
> all suck to.  I hope you all die.

I see no problem with no NC.  And I see no problem with a system which
denies teams that get their asses kicked in their biggest game of the
year of an opportunity to earn one.

--
TO
"going bowling, not back, avenge deaths..."

 
 
 

We don't have a playoff

Post by Alan Mund » Mon, 08 Dec 2003 14:06:06



Quote:

>> Three roughly equal one-loss teams, too close to each other for anyone
>> or anything to differentiate who's performed better with any degree of
>> confidence.  One of these teams will be arbitrarily denied a chance at
>> the MNC.

>> And this is the system you anti-playoff people think is so great and
>> wondergful?  GMAFB.  We don't have a playoff,

> nope.

>> we don't have a national champion,

> nope.

>> but we do have a system that regularly and maliciously
>> screws teams out of a deserved chance to win a NC.

> Again... nope.

>> That sucks.  You
>> all suck to.  I hope you all die.

> I see no problem with no NC.  And I see no problem with a system which
> denies teams that get their asses kicked in their biggest game of the
> year of an opportunity to earn one.

Ding ding ding.

--
Alan Mundy

 
 
 

We don't have a playoff

Post by andrew smit » Mon, 08 Dec 2003 14:17:57


Quote:
> Three roughly equal one-loss teams, too close to each other for anyone
> or anything to differentiate who's performed better with any degree of
> confidence.  One of these teams will be arbitrarily denied a chance at
> the MNC.

> And this is the system you anti-playoff people think is so great and
> wondergful?  GMAFB.  We don't have a playoff, we don't have a national
> champion, but we do have a system that regularly and maliciously
> screws teams out of a deserved chance to win a NC.  That sucks.  You
> all suck to.  I hope you all die.

playoofs suck

...

...

ack!

...

...

argh!

thud!

 
 
 

We don't have a playoff

Post by Jefferson N. Glapsk » Mon, 08 Dec 2003 14:31:01


Quote:
> Three roughly equal one-loss teams, too close to each other for anyone
> or anything to differentiate who's performed better with any degree of
> confidence.  One of these teams will be arbitrarily denied a chance at
> the MNC.

> And this is the system you anti-playoff people think is so great and
> wondergful?  GMAFB.  We don't have a playoff, we don't have a national
> champion, but we do have a system that regularly and maliciously
> screws teams out of a deserved chance to win a NC.  That sucks.  You
> all suck to.  I hope you all die.

PREACH!!!1

--
Jefferson N. Glapski
http://www.glapski.com

 
 
 

We don't have a playoff

Post by Seises de Corazone » Mon, 08 Dec 2003 14:39:11


What ye be sayin'?

Quote:
> Three roughly equal one-loss teams, too close to each other for anyone
> or anything to differentiate who's performed better with any degree of
> confidence.  One of these teams will be arbitrarily denied a chance at
> the MNC.

> And this is the system you anti-playoff people think is so great and
> wondergful?  GMAFB.

No.  The system that we think is so great and wondergful would send
LSU to the sugar bowl, U$C and Michigan to the Rose Bowl, and Kansas
State to the Orange Bowl.  Then Oklahoma would get a bid from the
Sugar to play the SEC champion.

Then, on January 2nd after a day of New Years Football Gluttony, the
writers would end up voting for the winner of LSU/Oklahoma and if U$C
won, the coaches would probably vote for them, or vice versa, and we'd
have a full year to discuss which team deserved to win the MNC.

Instead we have the BCS which this year does pretty much the same
thing, but without the New Years Football Gluttony.  This year we
could get the closest thing to the OJUS you can get with the BCS.
Excellent.

--
Ted Rathkopf

 
 
 

We don't have a playoff

Post by Daniel Serif » Mon, 08 Dec 2003 14:40:30

On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 23:01:42 -0600, T O'B wrote

Quote:
> And I see no problem with a system which
> denies teams that get their asses kicked in their biggest game of the
> year of an opportunity to earn one.

A playoff would do that, too. And do it better, I might add.

--
Daniel Seriff

I am filled with solutions!

 
 
 

We don't have a playoff

Post by Andre » Mon, 08 Dec 2003 14:57:37



Quote:

> No.  The system that we think is so great and wondergful would send
> LSU to the sugar bowl, U$C and Michigan to the Rose Bowl, and Kansas
> State to the Orange Bowl.  Then Oklahoma would get a bid from the
> Sugar to play the SEC champion.

> Then, on January 2nd after a day of New Years Football Gluttony, the
> writers would end up voting for the winner of LSU/Oklahoma and if U$C
> won, the coaches would probably vote for them, or vice versa, and we'd
> have a full year to discuss which team deserved to win the MNC.

A-***ing-men, brother!

You know, as a Southern Cal fan, I actually wouldn't be too choked if they
got frozen out of the BCS championship game and ended up in the Rose.
That's just the way it's supposed to be.

And if they deliver the knock-out blow to a decent Big-10 champ and end up
#1 in one poll, all the better......

 
 
 

We don't have a playoff

Post by JoeSchmo » Mon, 08 Dec 2003 16:41:18


Quote:
> Three roughly equal one-loss teams, too close to each other for anyone
> or anything to differentiate who's performed better with any degree of
> confidence.  One of these teams will be arbitrarily denied a chance at
> the MNC.

> And this is the system you anti-playoff people think is so great and
> wondergful?  GMAFB.  We don't have a playoff, we don't have a national
> champion, but we do have a system that regularly and maliciously
> screws teams out of a deserved chance to win a NC.  That sucks.  You
> all suck to.  I hope you all die.

Everyone always talks about playoffs making a "National Champion" but do
they really ? Was the 1983 or 1984 Villanova team actually a better team
than Georgetown ? Was the Miami team that upset Nebraska in the 1984 Orange
Bowl actually the best team that year (Nebraska beat one team 84-10, and
another 77-14) ? Was Penn St really the most talented team in 1986 ? Or did
Miami having one bad game make them a worse team than Penn St ?

NCAA only truly crowns REAL team champions in sports that win a series (as
in baseball, volleyball & maybe a few others). Its fun to watch playoffs but
they don't always crown the most deserving team as champion when they are a
one-loss and out system. Of course for football its impossible, so questions
will always arise as to who is better, or who should have won, etc.

Miami, had an argument in 2000, as they beat F$U and F$U was in the title
game. In 2001 Oregon had the best argument, instead of Nebraska. Shit
happens. Last year Miami was clear cut the better talented team than tO$U,
but when the game happened, Miami lost it. Was it fair ? Yes, because they
lost the one game that counted under the present circumstances.

If, as predicted tomorrow, U$C is # 1 in the polls but is # 3 in the BCS,
they have bad luck from the fates to kick around. Auburn turned out to be
sucky, so did Notre Lame, also the Bruins bombed out. If all of those teams
had held their own this year, L$U would have been the team out of luck, but
instead it looks as if the Trojans will be the ones to that have to
bend-over and hold their ankles.

 
 
 

We don't have a playoff

Post by Andre » Mon, 08 Dec 2003 17:24:31


Quote:

> If, as predicted tomorrow, U$C is # 1 in the polls but is # 3 in the BCS,
> they have bad luck from the fates to kick around. Auburn turned out to be
> sucky, so did Notre Lame, also the Bruins bombed out. If all of those
teams
> had held their own this year, L$U would have been the team out of luck,
but
> instead it looks as if the Trojans will be the ones to that have to
> bend-over and hold their ankles.

That's the pisser, isn't it?  Southern Cal routinely has an above average
SOS, and they certainly tried this year with Auburn away as an unusual OOC
opponent, but combine a weaker than usual Pac-10, and terrible ND and Auburn
teams, and they get hosed.
 
 
 

We don't have a playoff

Post by Dave Frie » Mon, 08 Dec 2003 18:40:53


Quote:
> Three roughly equal one-loss teams, too close to each other for anyone
> or anything to differentiate who's performed better with any degree of
> confidence.  One of these teams will be arbitrarily denied a chance at
> the MNC.

We had a playoff.  KSU beat OU.  LSU should play U$C in the Sugar for all
the marbles.  It seems very straightforward to me.

--Dave

 
 
 

We don't have a playoff

Post by Jon Russel » Mon, 08 Dec 2003 23:18:35


Quote:



>> Three roughly equal one-loss teams, too close to each other for anyone
>> or anything to differentiate who's performed better with any degree of
>> confidence.  One of these teams will be arbitrarily denied a chance at
>> the MNC.

>We had a playoff.  KSU beat OU.  LSU should play U$C in the Sugar for all
>the marbles.  It seems very straightforward to me.

Ding.

Don't forget to just say NO to playoffs.

The CheeseHusker

 
 
 

We don't have a playoff

Post by Clockwork Orang » Tue, 09 Dec 2003 00:20:01

76 trombones in the big parade, T O'B

Quote:
>> That sucks.  You
>> all suck to.  I hope you all die.

> I see no problem with no NC.

WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA??? DIE YOU ***ING COMMIE!!!!!!

--
Cheers,
--Jeff

"It just was not a good way to go out for the seniors, not a good way
to go out for anybody."
   -Irish tailback Julius Jones

"38-12 is a pretty good whupping."
   -Syracuse linebacker Rich Scanlon

Read the FAQ. It was wrote for idots like yew.

 
 
 

We don't have a playoff

Post by Clockwork Orang » Tue, 09 Dec 2003 00:21:13


Quote:
> And if they deliver the knock-out blow to a decent Big-10 champ
> and end up #1 in one poll, all the better......

Will you settle for Michigan?

--
Cheers,
--Jeff

"It just was not a good way to go out for the seniors, not a good way
to go out for anybody."
   -Irish tailback Julius Jones

"38-12 is a pretty good whupping."
   -Syracuse linebacker Rich Scanlon

Read the FAQ. It was wrote for idots like yew.

 
 
 

We don't have a playoff

Post by Mike Samuels » Tue, 09 Dec 2003 02:28:34

.....

Quote:
> Everyone always talks about playoffs making a "National Champion" but do
> they really ? Was the 1983 or 1984 Villanova team actually a better team
> than Georgetown ? Was the Miami team that upset Nebraska in the 1984 Orange
> Bowl actually the best team that year (Nebraska beat one team 84-10, and
> another 77-14) ? Was Penn St really the most talented team in 1986 ? Or did
> Miami having one bad game make them a worse team than Penn St ?

> NCAA only truly crowns REAL team champions in sports that win a series (as
> in baseball, volleyball & maybe a few others). Its fun to watch playoffs but
> they don't always crown the most deserving team as champion when they are a
> one-loss and out system. Of course for football its impossible, so questions
> will always arise as to who is better, or who should have won, etc.

Baseball needs multiple games because starting pitching varies so
much. Volleyball games take like 15 minutes. The NBA and NHL play
series as well I guess, but that's probably just for money. College
bball and hockey do not and I am perfectly happy with that.

I'm also perfectly happy with football not playing series, even if it
were physically possible. The point of a playoff is not to prove which
team is the "best". The point is to give the (8,12,16) most deserving
teams a chance to earn the championship on the field. At the end,
whether that champ would have lost 9 out of 10 times is irrelevant.

Not to mention the fact that "would have lost" is just a guess and the
best evidence we have is the games that were played. I think KSU would
have won on Saturday 9 out of 10 times. I also think OU is the "best"
team in the country. In other words, they would be the toughest to
play in January. If they do get chosen, I would still put them as big
favorites (10 points-ish) over LSU or USC.

....

Mike