BOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!!!!!!!!

BOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!!!!!!!!

Post by Joshu » Mon, 08 Dec 2003 13:18:05


That's the sound of the BCS imploding.
 
 
 

BOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!!!!!!!!

Post by DrPimpDad » Mon, 08 Dec 2003 13:18:57

and Bruce's head.

...................
I do not killfile nor use do-not-call lists.

 
 
 

BOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!!!!!!!!

Post by Alan Mund » Mon, 08 Dec 2003 13:22:59


Quote:
> That's the sound of the BCS imploding.

Why?

Name me a year when there HASN'T been a 3rd team with a legitimate claim to
playing in the national title game?

99 is the only one I can think of.

It happens every damn year and every year a ton of goobers predict that it
will bring down the BCS.

And then it doesn't happen.

--
Alan Mundy

 
 
 

BOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!!!!!!!!

Post by Glenn Tanne » Mon, 08 Dec 2003 13:29:22

Quote:



>>That's the sound of the BCS imploding.

> Why?

> Name me a year when there HASN'T been a 3rd team with a legitimate claim to
> playing in the national title game?

> 99 is the only one I can think of.

In every other year, there has been a clear-cut #1, and everyone argues
about who's #2.

This year, there's a chance that the team who is #1 in the polls won't
be in the BCS title game.

 
 
 

BOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!!!!!!!!

Post by Alan Mund » Mon, 08 Dec 2003 13:33:23



Quote:



>>>That's the sound of the BCS imploding.

>> Why?

>> Name me a year when there HASN'T been a 3rd team with a legitimate
>> claim to playing in the national title game?

>> 99 is the only one I can think of.

> In every other year, there has been a clear-cut #1, and everyone
> argues about who's #2.

> This year, there's a chance that the team who is #1 in the polls won't
> be in the BCS title game.

I seriously doubt that will happen.

Very seriously.

--
Alan Mundy

 
 
 

BOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!!!!!!!!

Post by Cocqu » Mon, 08 Dec 2003 13:45:16

Quote:
>Why?

>Name me a year when there HASN'T been a 3rd team with a legitimate claim to
>playing in the national title game?

>99 is the only one I can think of.

>It happens every damn year and every year a ton of goobers predict that it
>will bring down the BCS.

>And then it doesn't happen.

>--
>Alan Mundy

I look at it from a reverse psychology standpoint.

If there's a reason as to why situations like this doesn't bring down the BCS
is because this is what the BCS committee wants.  They want people talking
about the BCS.  And when you have 3 teams in a knot like this, people are gonna
talk about the BCS.

We need a situation where we go 3 or 4 years in a row where there's 2 clear-cut
teams playing in the BCS Championship game, and there's no discussion going on.
 And in turn, the BCS will become boring.  

But until then, as long as Sports Television, Sports Radio and the Sports
section of newspapers, and forums such as this have discussions about it, the
BCS people are happy.

That's just my opinion.

 
 
 

BOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!!!!!!!!

Post by Steve Cutche » Mon, 08 Dec 2003 14:01:44


Quote:

> >Why?

> >Name me a year when there HASN'T been a 3rd team with a legitimate claim to
> >playing in the national title game?

> >99 is the only one I can think of.

> >It happens every damn year and every year a ton of goobers predict that it
> >will bring down the BCS.

> >And then it doesn't happen.

> >--
> >Alan Mundy

> I look at it from a reverse psychology standpoint.

> If there's a reason as to why situations like this doesn't bring down the BCS
> is because this is what the BCS committee wants.  They want people talking
> about the BCS.  And when you have 3 teams in a knot like this, people are
> gonna
> talk about the BCS.

> We need a situation where we go 3 or 4 years in a row where there's 2
> clear-cut
> teams playing in the BCS Championship game, and there's no discussion going
> on.
>  And in turn, the BCS will become boring.  

> But until then, as long as Sports Television, Sports Radio and the Sports
> section of newspapers, and forums such as this have discussions about it, the
> BCS people are happy.

> That's just my opinion.

Yes.

It has NOTHING (much) to do with making sure a proper National Champion
is crowned.  It has EVERYTHING to do with creating large audiences that
will justify high advertising rates.  Money Talks.

 
 
 

BOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!!!!!!!!

Post by Do What » Mon, 08 Dec 2003 14:04:40

Quote:
>> In every other year, there has been a clear-cut #1, and everyone
>> argues about who's #2.

>> This year, there's a chance that the team who is #1 in the polls won't
>> be in the BCS title game.

>I seriously doubt that will happen.

>Very seriously.

I seriously disagree.  
It gonna be LSU & OU...   not that I agree with it, but thats the way
it will go down.
USC gets the AP & we have a split title.
 
 
 

BOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!!!!!!!!

Post by Chris Stasse » Tue, 09 Dec 2003 00:22:39

Quote:

> Name me a year when there HASN'T been a 3rd team with a legitimate
> claim to playing in the national title game?

Uh... 2002?

I'd like to see playoffs, but as you point out, arguments about who
deserves the Sugar Bowl aren't going to spell the death of the BCS.

Sure, as anti-playoff advocates claim, there will be "bubble" teams
no matter how many play for the title.  But the argument "we're #9
but we deserve to be #8" is far weaker, and less meaningful in terms
of having a shot at the title, than an argument over #2/#3, which
seems to happen more often than not in the BCS.

There are "bubble teams" that don't make the 64-team hoops field, but
nobody believes they'd have a shot at even the sweet six*** if the
field were expanded to 96 or 128.

--
Chris Stassen                  http://SportToday.org/

 
 
 

BOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!!!!!!!!

Post by Daniel Serif » Tue, 09 Dec 2003 05:29:50

On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 9:22:39 -0600, Chris Stassen wrote

Quote:

>> Name me a year when there HASN'T been a 3rd team with a legitimate
>> claim to playing in the national title game?

> Uh... 2002?

> I'd like to see playoffs, but as you point out, arguments about who
> deserves the Sugar Bowl aren't going to spell the death of the BCS.

> Sure, as anti-playoff advocates claim, there will be "bubble" teams
> no matter how many play for the title.  But the argument "we're #9
> but we deserve to be #8" is far weaker, and less meaningful in terms
> of having a shot at the title, than an argument over #2/#3, which
> seems to happen more often than not in the BCS.

> There are "bubble teams" that don't make the 64-team hoops field, but
> nobody believes they'd have a shot at even the sweet six*** if the
> field were expanded to 96 or 128.

And "April Madness" just doesn't have the same ring to it.

--
Daniel Seriff

I feel like I just got mauled by Jesus!

 
 
 

BOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!!!!!!!!

Post by Trent Woodru » Tue, 09 Dec 2003 07:00:39

Quote:
>Chris Stassen was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...
>Sure, as anti-playoff advocates claim, there will be "bubble" teams
>no matter how many play for the title.  But the argument "we're #9
>but we deserve to be #8" is far weaker, and less meaningful in terms
>of having a shot at the title, than an argument over #2/#3, which
>seems to happen more often than not in the BCS.

Unless that #8 team wins it all.  Then it's pretty meaningful.

Trent
Chairborne "Nine of Diamonds" Ranger

...To be a great NCO, you need three bones: a backbone, a wishbone and a funny bone.

 
 
 

BOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!!!!!!!!

Post by Daniel Serif » Tue, 09 Dec 2003 07:41:27

On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 16:00:39 -0600, Trent Woodruff wrote

Quote:
>> Chris Stassen was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...

>> Sure, as anti-playoff advocates claim, there will be "bubble" teams
>> no matter how many play for the title.  But the argument "we're #9
>> but we deserve to be #8" is far weaker, and less meaningful in terms
>> of having a shot at the title, than an argument over #2/#3, which
>> seems to happen more often than not in the BCS.

> Unless that #8 team wins it all. Then it's pretty meaningful.

Who might potentially win a tournament is not relevant to who initially gets
into the tournament.

That, as they say, is why they play the games.

--
Daniel Seriff

The power of Debbie's ***s compels you.

 
 
 

BOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!!!!!!!!

Post by Chris Stasse » Tue, 09 Dec 2003 09:16:25

Quote:


> > but we deserve to be #8" is far weaker, and less meaningful in terms
> > of having a shot at the title, than an argument over #2/#3, which
> > seems to happen more often than not in the BCS.

> Unless that #8 team wins it all.  Then it's pretty meaningful.

Well... assuming that BCS rankings were used for seeding (ignoring
automatic bids for the sake of simplicity)...

The #8 seed (Tennessee) would have to beat the #1 seed (Oklahoma).
And then presumably the #4 seed (Michigan)
And then presumably the #2 (LSU) or #3 (USC) seed

If Tennessee can do that, they deserve the title.  And if the bubble
team (#9 Miami) wants to whine, "we could have done that, too!"...
well, one could just point out that all they had to do to get into
the playoff -- with a much better seeding than Tennessee -- would
have been to NOT LOSE to that very same Tennessee team at home.

Alternatively, you could do a 12-team playoff with first-round byes
for the top four seeds, and add Miami-Florida (9), Kansas State (10),
Miami-Ohio (11), and Georgia (12).  Would the bubble team (13 Iowa)
have any business carping that they deserved a shot to play for the
title?  ("Maybe you ought to finish in the top three of your own damn
conference, first.")

--
Chris Stassen                  http://www.stassen.com/chris

 
 
 

BOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!!!!!!!!

Post by Trent Woodru » Tue, 09 Dec 2003 11:38:09

Quote:
>Chris Stassen was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...


>>> but we deserve to be #8" is far weaker, and less meaningful in terms
>>> of having a shot at the title, than an argument over #2/#3, which
>>> seems to happen more often than not in the BCS.
>> Unless that #8 team wins it all.  Then it's pretty meaningful.
>Well... assuming that BCS rankings were used for seeding (ignoring
>automatic bids for the sake of simplicity)...
>The #8 seed (Tennessee) would have to beat the #1 seed (Oklahoma).
>And then presumably the #4 seed (Michigan)
>And then presumably the #2 (LSU) or #3 (USC) seed
>If Tennessee can do that, they deserve the title.  And if the bubble
>team (#9 Miami) wants to whine, "we could have done that, too!"...
>well, one could just point out that all they had to do to get into
>the playoff -- with a much better seeding than Tennessee -- would
>have been to NOT LOSE to that very same Tennessee team at home.

Every bit of this rationale is also an argument that could easily be
applied to the current setup.

Trent
Chairborne "Nine of Diamonds" Ranger

...To be a great NCO, you need three bones: a backbone, a wishbone and a funny bone.

 
 
 

BOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!!!!!!!!

Post by Trent Woodru » Tue, 09 Dec 2003 11:38:54

Quote:
>Daniel Seriff was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...
>>On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 16:00:39 -0600, Trent Woodruff wrote
>>> Chris Stassen was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...
>>> Sure, as anti-playoff advocates claim, there will be "bubble" teams
>>> no matter how many play for the title.  But the argument "we're #9
>>> but we deserve to be #8" is far weaker, and less meaningful in terms
>>> of having a shot at the title, than an argument over #2/#3, which
>>> seems to happen more often than not in the BCS.
>> Unless that #8 team wins it all. Then it's pretty meaningful.
>Who might potentially win a tournament is not relevant to who initially gets
>into the tournament.

This makes absolutely no sense to me.  If this is the case, then why
have a regular season?  Why not just start week one as the first round
of a season-long tournament and go from there?

Trent
Chairborne "Nine of Diamonds" Ranger

...To be a great NCO, you need three bones: a backbone, a wishbone and a funny bone.