ScouserDuck: [t0.gstatic.com image 213x237]

Only thing that matters anyways.

Ladies and gentlemen, we've found Jim Delaney's proxy on Fark!

dellsworth1007: Cat Food Sandwiches: We already have a National Championship Playoff. It's called the SEC Championship Game.

But a team from the SEC that did not even play in that game is the current National Champ!

Minarets: Cat Food Sandwiches: We already have a National Championship Playoff. It's called the SEC Championship Game.

Which is why a team that didn't win the SEC championship game was allowed to play for the National Championship?

The winner of that game earned a spot in the NC championship game, did it not?

Kurmudgeon: Nothing sucks quite like not having a playoff, so it will actually just suck the same.
Quit watching is the only solution then maybe they'll figure it out.....eventually.

Every single one of you biatching about the BCS need to go back and check out some of the pre-BCS matchups to see how shiatty it used to be, we had top 5 teams playing bottom 25 teams for NC.

You hate the BCS but it is a farkload better than the old system, just like any improvement will be better than the BCS, fark people pull the rods out of your asses and realize you are arguing about a system that is getting better.

For all your biatching you cant ignore there is a difference in competition levels of the conferences and it really is a fact that you have 4 conferences that are good and then you have everyone else, its not opinion, its fact.

CalvinMorallis: Problem solved; college football fixed. You're welcome.

The rose bowl thinks they should get preferential treatment so that would never work

steamingpile: CalvinMorallis: Problem solved; college football fixed. You're welcome.

The rose bowl thinks they should get preferential treatment so that would never work

Yeah. Fark those guys, right? They're only the oldest, most important bowl game in the country.

BCS just announced 8 and 16 team playoff options are officially dead, they're deciding amongst a small group of 4-team options to present to school presidents.

ScouserDuck: Yeah. Fark those guys, right? They're only the oldest, most important bowl game in the country.

This may come as a surprise, but there are a significant number of people that disagree with that part

Auto-qualifying is also being ditched

YouWinAgainGravity: ScouserDuck: Yeah. Fark those guys, right? They're only the oldest, most important bowl game in the country.

This may come as a surprise, but there are a significant number of people that disagree with that part

Lots of people would disagree that the Stanley Cup is the greatest trophy in sports. Doesn't make them right.

ScouserDuck: YouWinAgainGravity: ScouserDuck: Yeah. Fark those guys, right? They're only the oldest, most important bowl game in the country.

This may come as a surprise, but there are a significant number of people that disagree with that part

Lots of people would disagree that the Stanley Cup is the greatest trophy in sports. Doesn't make them right.

Aren't you adorable

ScouserDuck: YouWinAgainGravity: ScouserDuck: Yeah. Fark those guys, right? They're only the oldest, most important bowl game in the country.

This may come as a surprise, but there are a significant number of people that disagree with that part

Lots of people would disagree that the Stanley Cup is the greatest trophy in sports. Doesn't make them right.

So, you're saying that Oregon-Wisconsin was last season's most important game? And TCU-Wisconsin the year before that?

steamingpile: Every single one of you biatching about the BCS need to go back and check out some of the pre-BCS matchups to see how shiatty it used to be, we had top 5 teams playing bottom 25 teams for NC.

You hate the BCS but it is a farkload better than the old system, just like any improvement will be better than the BCS, fark people pull the rods out of your asses and realize you are arguing about a system that is getting better.

For all your biatching you cant ignore there is a difference in competition levels of the conferences and it really is a fact that you have 4 conferences that are good and then you have everyone else, its not opinion, its fact.

Wrong, Being better than the old system is hardly a recommendation. I don't like having a championship decided by proxy instead of playing for it. Now you can go back to talking to the voices in your head.

Huzzah, that crazy plan with 3 semifinal games that gives the Rose Bowl special treatment is also off the table

YouWinAgainGravity: Huzzah, that crazy plan with 3 semifinal games that gives the Rose Bowl special treatment is also off the table

but, but, but that was my favorite...

It was also announced that AQs will be gone as well.

You know what would be easiest, and make the most sense as far as a 4 team playoff goes?

Take the conference champions, and any undefeated independents (Notre Dame and Army are the only independents left, I think, and neither of them will really factor in much as it is).

Any undefeated teams = in. If there's more than 4... then discriminate by BCS ranking. After that, top BCS rankings amongst remaining champions get in.

That means, if you don't win your conference, you don't get to play for the title (looking at you, Alabama, and you too, Oklahoma). Everyone else can go play in their bowls.

/This will, of course, never happen, being too sensible

IAmRight: YouWinAgainGravity: It will eventually get there. A 4 team playoff is a huge step in the right direction.

It'll get there. Then it will go past it. Then it will go further past it. Then there will be a 32-team playoff. Then a 64-team playoff. If you're going to just act as though playoffs are good, even though a one-and-done playoff is the worst way to determine a champion in terms of actually having the champion be the best team of the year, then you might as well go full retard and celebrate the sheer pointlessness of it all by at least making for some bracket fun.

Dude. Time to up your dosage

So let me get the latest round of wisdom correct...

The Rose Bowl is the most important game in college football, even when it's an exhibition between teams that aren't selected to play in the national championship.

A broken system shouldn't be fixed because it's better than the even more broken system we used to have.

The President's Trophy is more important than the Stanley Cup, despite the team winning the President's trophy losing in their opening round series.


I don't know what's more frightening - that people in the Sports Tab are trying to troll this hard, or the fact they might just actually believe this bullshiat.

UNC_Samurai: I don't know what's more frightening - that people in the Sports Tab are trying to troll this hard, or the fact they might just actually believe this bullshiat.


I think he's just taking "Devil's Advocate" to the extreme for the lulz. Must be a slow day at the "Genius Bar."

UNC_Samurai: So let me get the latest round of wisdom correct...

The Rose Bowl is the most important game in college football, even when it's an exhibition between teams that aren't selected to play in the national championship.

A broken system shouldn't be fixed because it's better than the even more broken system we used to have.

The President's Trophy is more important than the Stanley Cup, despite the team winning the President's trophy losing in their opening round series.


I don't know what's more frightening - that people in the Sports Tab are trying to troll this hard, or the fact they might just actually believe this bullshiat.

Don't forget that if there is a playoff system, fans will hate their team and consider them failures if they don't win the whole thing every year.

UNC_Samurai: The President's Trophy is more important than the Stanley Cup, despite the team winning the President's trophy losing in their opening round series.

i think that's the point. your disdain for the winners of the president's trophy because they didn't manage to win 4 of 7 is the problem. they did win 51 of 82, and tallied more points than anyone else (not by much). that's a hell of an accomplishment, but because of the playoffs everyone dismisses months and months of work. how does winning a small sample size knock out tournament prove you're worthy of being remembered as the superior team that season? and you can claim that the tournament isn't meant to determine the "best" team, but that's how people use the results. why have a regular season at all? why not just have a random draw (or seeded from the previous year's results) into a bracket and start the playoffs from day one?

UNC_Samurai: So let me get the latest round of wisdom correct...

The Rose Bowl is the most important game in college football, even when it's an exhibition between teams that aren't selected to play in the national championship.

A broken system shouldn't be fixed because it's better than the even more broken system we used to have.

The President's Trophy is more important than the Stanley Cup, despite the team winning the President's trophy losing in their opening round series.


I don't know what's more frightening - that people in the Sports Tab are trying to troll this hard, or the fact they might just actually believe this bullshiat.

A) I didnt say it was the most important game, I said it was the most important bowl. Not only is it the oldest bowl game in the country, but they founded the New Years game tradition. The whole Bowl concept can pretty much thank it's existance to the Rose Bowl. There is not a more storied bowl in existance.

B) The president's trophy? Really? A 20 something year old trophy awarded for regular season play is more important than a 100+ year old trophy, sometimes called the Holy Grail, awarded to the team that succeds in the only relevant half of the season for the sport. You, sir, are the one who must be trolling. I sure Ray Borque went to Colorado in order to win that ever evasive President's Cup.

A Fark Handle: UNC_Samurai: The President's Trophy is more important than the Stanley Cup, despite the team winning the President's trophy losing in their opening round series.

i think that's the point. your disdain for the winners of the president's trophy because they didn't manage to win 4 of 7 is the problem. they did win 51 of 82, and tallied more points than anyone else (not by much). that's a hell of an accomplishment, but because of the playoffs everyone dismisses months and months of work. how does winning a small sample size knock out tournament prove you're worthy of being remembered as the superior team that season? and you can claim that the tournament isn't meant to determine the "best" team, but that's how people use the results. why have a regular season at all? why not just have a random draw (or seeded from the previous year's results) into a bracket and start the playoffs from day one?

If playoffs make the regular season unimportant, why do teams hang banners about things like winning their division or something like the President's trophy? Why do any fans attend any regular season games at all?

ScouserDuck: B) The president's trophy? Really? A 20 something year old trophy awarded for regular season play is more important than a 100+ year old trophy, sometimes called the Holy Grail, awarded to the team that succeds in the only relevant half of the season for the sport. You, sir, are the one who must be trolling. I sure Ray Borque went to Colorado in order to win that ever evasive President's Cup.

You should probably reread his post.

Ya'll gettin' trolled.

IAmRight: This never happens in the pros, where we mock the Bills, as though making the Finals for four consecutive years, losing one on a missed kick at the end of the game, is something to be mocked. Marty Schottenheimer is treated as though he's a lesser coach because he never won a Super Bowl. Are you delusional? The NFL sh*ts all over anyone who doesn't succeed in the one-and-done season. Who cares how good you were for four months? All that matters is one game!

I'm sure that since the 49ers didn't win it all, fans feel just as disappointed in their team's season having gone 13-3 and going to the NFC championship game as if they had instead gone about 4-12 as everyone initially predicted.

IAmRight: YouWinAgainGravity: If playoffs make the regular season unimportant, why do teams hang banners about things like winning their division or something like the President's trophy?

Did we not sh*t all over the Patriots for their 16-0 banner?

Yeah, we did, because it was funny....but only for a little while. Sure, every now and then someone will post the pic of the third-world kids wearing the "19-0" t-shirts, but all serious fans recognize that the Pats' 16-0 year was something we're not liable to see again in our lifetimes.

It's like how Lehigh and Norfolk State fans were seen throwing things at their teams and calling them losers for not winning the NCAA tournament.

IAmRight: Once it happens for a few consecutive years, people do get pissed off at their teams, yes. See: Philadelphia, Buffalo.

Unlike in a bowl system, where fans praise teams like Ohio State and Virginia Tech for continually losing their bowl games.

IAmRight: Lost Thought 00: It may be flawed, but at least it is an objective system. That seems to me to be a necessary precondition for any reasonable champion determination.

There's no such thing as objectivity.

I think two fumbles by a backup punt returner should have more bearing on who the champion is than an entire season's worth of games that show one team to consistenly outperform another! Nothing shows a team's true greatness like being able to have a ball randomly bounce into someone's knee.

Even disregarding the fluke nature of determining games in close matchups, let's consider things that happen in round-robin scenarios. I remember several instances of this happening in sports...for a while, the Angels always beat the Yankees, the Yankees always beat the Red Sox, and the Red Sox always beat the Angels. (I used baseball because they have larger sample sizes, but over multiple seasons, there were instances like the Denver > New England > Indianapolis > Denver matchups where, for some reason or another, one team always would win - so whoever drew the other one first basically determined who would win the playoffs - not because one was inherently the best team, but because they didn't have to face the team they couldn't handle.

Playoffs don't solve this. They are also part of a really annoying binary culture, where something is either right or wrong. There's no appreciation of subtlety - the very idea that the champion of a tournament probably isn't the best team seems to offend people for some reason, yet the idea that one of the best two teams in the country is considered the best team is apparently terrible.

Playoffs create chaos and money. They are not good means for ensuring the best team becomes champion.


He's got a point. The better team should win, not the one who scores more points. This will protect the weak link from screwing up a game. Also, if one team has more completions, yards and a better look, they should win over a team that has scored more points.

We have to agree on some level of objectivity. Points, tournaments, winners... Your issue with how people view the victor of the championship game is not the fault of the system.

An 8 team playoff is probably the best possible answer. 16 is too many extra games, you'd have to cut some of the regular season. But 8 teams only adds 3 more games if you use the 4 BCS games as the first round. Given the big dead zone between the regular season and the bowls, two more weekends for a few teams should be easy to fit in.

I want to see a rule where, if going into the final pre-bowl BCS rankings, if the team ranked #1 in the BCS is undefeated, and the #2 and the #3 teams both have two losses...then #1 gets the national championship, and everyone else plays for second.

IAmRight: kiteless: He's got a point. The better team should win, not the one who scores more points. This will protect the weak link from screwing up a game. Also, if one team has more completions, yards and a better look, they should win over a team that has scored more points.

A 9-7 team is better than a 13-3 team, wherein each team has one victory against the other. This makes sense.

/How about if we have it somewhat College World Series-style? If it's a rematch of a game, then it's best-of-3 but the first one counts. So if you lost the regular season matchup, you have to beat the other team twice?

The 9-7 team beat them on the field, therefore the 13-3 team was no longer the "better" team. I don't care if it's a best of one, or best of seven. When the regular season is done, you then play against other quality teams until one remains standing. That's the whole point of a post season, to allow the teams which qualified through the regular season to see who is the best. Did you fail to outscore your opponent? Then you're not the best, you're not "superior".

IAmRight: UNC_Samurai: The 9-7 team beat them on the field, therefore the 13-3 team was no longer the "better" team.

Sure, who cares that the 13-3 team also beat the 9-7 team on the field, too. One game is a better determinant than 16.

When you get into the playoffs, it is. Win or go home - that's the way it's been since 1932, and it works in the eyes of every sane sports fan.

IAmRight: UNC_Samurai: That's the whole point of a post season, to allow the teams which qualified through the regular season to see who is the best.

LOL the point of a postseason is to drive interest and revenue into the league's coffers. The problem is that people actually believe that playoffs exist for the reason you deludedly think they exist.

Yes, heaven forbid the NFL playoffs create interest and revenue and help determine the best team at the same time.

Congratulations, at this point, you've won, because I keep coming back to argue with either a troll worse than steamingpile, or a complete and utter moron.

ScouserDuck: Yeah. Fark those guys, right? They're only the oldest, most important bowl game in the country.

They are only the most important bowl game to pac 10 people, the big 10 no longer gives much of a shiat and would rather their team be in the NCG rather than the rose bowl.

Kurmudgeon: Wrong, Being better than the old system is hardly a recommendation. I don't like having a championship decided by proxy instead of playing for it. Now you can go back to talking to the voices in your head.

Its not just better, its a fark load better. And if you dont like having a championship decided by proxy then you would have really hated the old system that basically took who ever was thought to be the best and then vote them that top spot. Very rarely did you have two top 5 teams or even top 10 teams play each other in a bowl game and it was never a 1 vs top 5. In the old system if a team was ranked in the top 3 they would stay in the top 10 almost every time even after a loss.

I will give you a great example and its recent, in 1990 notre dame was preseason 2, lost two games during the season, played nobody ranked in the top 25 until their bowl game yet never dropped out of the top 10. Oh and they got to play the number 1 team in that bowl game.

Examine the old system, really look at it, compared to that the BCS is farking great, for years everyone biatched that the bowl games were boring because the games were merely exhibitions for teams to beat up on crappier opponents, the BCS stopped that and even gave us a 1 vs 2 format.

Most of you are biatching about shiat that you have no clue about.

UNC_Samurai: Congratulations, at this point, you've won, because I keep coming back to argue with either a troll worse than steamingpile, or a complete and utter moron.

You know its not an insult when you are 100% wrong, bowl games were created as exhibitions and a way for alumni to go see a warmer area for a few days with the guise of seeing their school play, I bet you also didnt know that for a long time the national championship was handed out before the bowl games.

Bowl games were not invented to determine which team was better, its has evolved into that over time.

Also I rarely troll sports threads, well sometimes taints threads because of one douche bandwagon fan.

steamingpile: the BCS stopped that and even gave us a 1 vs 2 format.

You know which sports I really have a hard time enjoying on a competition level? Anything where the winner is judged. I can enjoy watching an ice skater do a twisty flippy do, or a gymnast flinging herself through the air and sticking it, but when everyone is booing at the French judge it loses fun for me. I will agree that the 1 vs. 2 thanks to the BCS is better than the old system. But I can't get over people deciding that this 10-2 team is better than that 11-1 or 12-0 team. A structured playoff system will not tell us who the best team is but it will give us a tournament winner who beat a bunch of great teams.

/not a direct rebuttal to you, just a few pennies thrown in

kiteless: steamingpile: the BCS stopped that and even gave us a 1 vs 2 format.

You know which sports I really have a hard time enjoying on a competition level? Anything where the winner is judged. I can enjoy watching an ice skater do a twisty flippy do, or a gymnast flinging herself through the air and sticking it, but when everyone is booing at the French judge it loses fun for me. I will agree that the 1 vs. 2 thanks to the BCS is better than the old system. But I can't get over people deciding that this 10-2 team is better than that 11-1 or 12-0 team. A structured playoff system will not tell us who the best team is but it will give us a tournament winner who beat a bunch of great teams.

/not a direct rebuttal to you, just a few pennies thrown in

I can agree to a point but the BCS is leaps and bounds better than the old system ever was and even a +1 would give us yet another great game, bowl games used to be hit or miss but now almost all are must watch TV.

No Line For Beer: Playoff system will still be broken though as long as undefeated teams are ranked #5 or 6 and find themselves on the outside looking in. Remember kids: Every game counts (but only if you're one of thirty schools otherwise you're entire schedule is meaningless exhibition games; but hey, you get to play in another meaningless exhibition game).unless its against teams that qualify as cupcakes for the big conferences.

Fixed that for you, there is a reason Boise States SOS winds up closer to 100 every year rather than 20, even after their one staunch supporter touts how great they are and how it only will go up as other teams keep winning it was still dropping, I think last time I checked last year it was in the 70s.

Like it or not, the big teams face tougher competition in their conferences than others, even the washingtons who went like 2-22 a couple years ago could have finished .500 or better in most lesser conferences.

steamingpile: Most of you are biatching about shiat that you have no clue about.

Improve your reading skills and I'll be more impressed with your arguments.
As for Notre Dame, they are one of the main reasons I want a playoff so they won't be getting yet more money and prestige after beating a cream puff in bowl. The Irish are the perfect example of the teams that drop the least and stay the highest in the rankings despite losses. I'm very sick of the same old conferences and teams getting all the benefits by riding on their popularity and influence instead of their on field performance.

SevenizGud: I want to see a rule where, if going into the final pre-bowl BCS rankings, if the team ranked #1 in the BCS is undefeated, and the #2 and the #3 teams both have two losses...then #1 gets the national championship, and everyone else plays for second.

So Boise manages to skate through their cupcake schedule while Bama, LSU, USC get one loss after fighting through tough schedules for 2 or 3?