Jump to content

2012 NCAA Football thread


Kevin W.

Recommended Posts

Sure losing to Iowa State wasn't great, but didn't the school have a tragedy that day? Also OK State's conference wasn't exactly easy with

Oklahoma, RG3, K-State, and A&M last year.

A&M was pretty bad last year.

Never mind. My mistake with them.

san-francisco-giants-cap.jpgsanfranciscob.gifArizonaWildcats4.gifcalirvine.jpg
BEAR DOWN ARIZONA!

2013/14 Tanks Picks Champion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Did they deserve it under the BCS system? Sure.

That kinda renders the argument of "The BCS is flawed!" useless, doesn't it? It's pretty obvious that Alabama was deserving to play for the national championship. Admitting that Notre Dame was deserving of playing in the game means the BCS "got it right", correct?

But I'm trying to prove that the BCS system shouldn't exist in the first place.

If there were no BCS system, we'd still have the old system in place (with all the conference champions playing in their designated bowls) with very few opportunities to have a "national championship" played in a bowl game. Or worse, we'd still have the Bowl Alliance.

The BCS helped create an annual NCG and invited a bunch of the small schools (Boise State, TCU, Hawaii, Northern Illinois, Utah) to the prestigious bowl games they could only dream of playing in before. On the whole, it was a vast improvement for college football. The BCS paved the way for the creation of a playoff.

The great thing about a playoff is that the pretenders who happened to get a high seed get knocked out. Notre Dame would not be in the championship game under a playoff system.

I'd love to see this be explained. Another FantasyLand scenario.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prior to the BCS, would we still have had a "national championship" game this year? Alabama would definitely be playing in the Sugar Bowl, but would they play ND? It's weird to think about how long college football went without having an actual championship game, especially for someone like me that can only remember the BCS era.

Wordmark_zpsaxgeaoqy.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did they deserve it under the BCS system? Sure.

That kinda renders the argument of "The BCS is flawed!" useless, doesn't it? It's pretty obvious that Alabama was deserving to play for the national championship. Admitting that Notre Dame was deserving of playing in the game means the BCS "got it right", correct?

But I'm trying to prove that the BCS system shouldn't exist in the first place.

If there were no BCS system, we'd still have the old system in place (with all the conference champions playing in their designated bowls) with very few opportunities to have a "national championship" played in a bowl game. Or worse, we'd still have the Bowl Alliance.

The BCS helped create an annual NCG and invited a bunch of the small schools (Boise State, TCU, Hawaii, Northern Illinois, Utah) to the prestigious bowl games they could only dream of playing in before. On the whole, it was a vast improvement for college football. The BCS paved the way for the creation of a playoff.

The great thing about a playoff is that the pretenders who happened to get a high seed get knocked out. Notre Dame would not be in the championship game under a playoff system.

I'd love to see this be explained. Another FantasyLand scenario.

They didn't get it right because Notre Dame was obviously not the second best team in the nation. Even if they deserved to get in, the BCS failed to bring the best two teams in the nation in a matchup.

I do not disagree that the BCS is better than the last system we had. I'm saying that what we have right now is not good enough. We need a playoff of at least 8 teams.

You honestly think that Notre Dame would've made it out of the first round? Did you not watch them all season, and in the national championship game? This is the same team that almost lost to Pitt.

b0b5d4f702adf623d75285ca50ee7632.jpg
Why you make fun of me? I make concept for Auburn champions and you make fun of me. I cry tears.
Chopping off the dicks of Filipino boys and embracing causes that promote bigotry =/= strong moral character.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly would've taken Oregon over Bama in the title game this year. They only lost one game, and it was to the eventual PAC 12 champion. Bama lost to a very good Texas A&M team who also had two losses, but Stanford actually won the conference. And it's not like putting a team in the NCG who didn't play for their conference title is rare. It's happened already (I think) twice, and Bama just did it last year.

Either way, two things come from this. Stanford and Oregon are each others worst enemies in terms of costing the other a shot at the National Title, and :censored: Notre Dame for playing such a weak ass schedule (Plus, their win over Stanford came on a bad call anyway).

spacer.png

On 11/19/2012 at 7:23 PM, oldschoolvikings said:
She’s still half convinced “Chris Creamer” is a porn site.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you didn't win your conference why should you be able to win a national championship?

I don't know, but that's how it's been done in the BCS. It's a flawed logic, but it's even more ridiculous to flaw that logic to the point where it's only selectively used.

spacer.png

On 11/19/2012 at 7:23 PM, oldschoolvikings said:
She’s still half convinced “Chris Creamer” is a porn site.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did they deserve it under the BCS system? Sure.

That kinda renders the argument of "The BCS is flawed!" useless, doesn't it? It's pretty obvious that Alabama was deserving to play for the national championship. Admitting that Notre Dame was deserving of playing in the game means the BCS "got it right", correct?

But I'm trying to prove that the BCS system shouldn't exist in the first place.

If there were no BCS system, we'd still have the old system in place (with all the conference champions playing in their designated bowls) with very few opportunities to have a "national championship" played in a bowl game. Or worse, we'd still have the Bowl Alliance.

The BCS helped create an annual NCG and invited a bunch of the small schools (Boise State, TCU, Hawaii, Northern Illinois, Utah) to the prestigious bowl games they could only dream of playing in before. On the whole, it was a vast improvement for college football. The BCS paved the way for the creation of a playoff.

The great thing about a playoff is that the pretenders who happened to get a high seed get knocked out. Notre Dame would not be in the championship game under a playoff system.

I'd love to see this be explained. Another FantasyLand scenario.

They didn't get it right because Notre Dame was obviously not the second best team in the nation. Even if they deserved to get in, the BCS failed to bring the best two teams in the nation in a matchup.

I do not disagree that the BCS is better than the last system we had. I'm saying that what we have right now is not good enough. We need a playoff of at least 8 teams.

You honestly think that Notre Dame would've made it out of the first round? Did you not watch them all season, and in the national championship game? This is the same team that almost lost to Pitt.

Notre Dame would've played Florida in a National Semifinal. I think ND would've stood at least a halfway decent chance in that game. ND beat Stanford at home (and you can bitch and complain all about the last play all you want, but if you watch the replay, you'll see that, well, the ND players disengage and run away because the whistle blew before he crosses the plane) while Oregon didn't. ND beat Oklahoma on the road very similarly to how Kansas State did. Kansas State got blown out by Baylor. Did they have some close calls they probably shouldn't have? Yeah, the Pitt game was a total disaster. But once again, people weren't bitching (before the bowls) that Florida almost lost to ULL and that they didn't deserve to be 3 because of it.

There's one team you can say is definitely better than Notre Dame and it's Alabama. We can argue the merits of really everyone who will finish in the top five when it's all set and done. But football is a funny game and one based a lot on match-ups and whose style of play comes out on top. It's how South Carolina can drill Georgia, Florida can drill South Carolina, and then have Georgia beat Florida on a day where the Gators looked really bad. In the current system, it's extremely hard to play for a national championship.

We can say what we want about wanting a playoff, but will it really prove who's the best team out there? Or will it just prove who had the best draw in the playoff to suit their strengths? If we're using the above as an example (and assuming USC, UF, and UGA are all relatively equal talent-wise, a fair assumption), South Carolina would stand a much better chance at winning the National Championship if Georgia was on their side of the bracket than if Florida was and you can draw the same comparisons for each team on the list.

Let's say we had an eight-team playoff this year with all top-15 conference champions included plus the next-highest at-larges. That playoff would've had the following teams... ND, Bama, Florida, Oregon, K-State, Stanford, FSU, and NIU. Would we have been happy with the possibility of a two-loss ACC team winning a national championship simply because they got hot and had a favorable schedule of opponents?

6fQjS3M.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did they deserve it under the BCS system? Sure.

That kinda renders the argument of "The BCS is flawed!" useless, doesn't it? It's pretty obvious that Alabama was deserving to play for the national championship. Admitting that Notre Dame was deserving of playing in the game means the BCS "got it right", correct?

But I'm trying to prove that the BCS system shouldn't exist in the first place.

If there were no BCS system, we'd still have the old system in place (with all the conference champions playing in their designated bowls) with very few opportunities to have a "national championship" played in a bowl game. Or worse, we'd still have the Bowl Alliance.

The BCS helped create an annual NCG and invited a bunch of the small schools (Boise State, TCU, Hawaii, Northern Illinois, Utah) to the prestigious bowl games they could only dream of playing in before. On the whole, it was a vast improvement for college football. The BCS paved the way for the creation of a playoff.

The great thing about a playoff is that the pretenders who happened to get a high seed get knocked out. Notre Dame would not be in the championship game under a playoff system.

I'd love to see this be explained. Another FantasyLand scenario.

They didn't get it right because Notre Dame was obviously not the second best team in the nation. Even if they deserved to get in, the BCS failed to bring the best two teams in the nation in a matchup.

I do not disagree that the BCS is better than the last system we had. I'm saying that what we have right now is not good enough. We need a playoff of at least 8 teams.

You honestly think that Notre Dame would've made it out of the first round? Did you not watch them all season, and in the national championship game? This is the same team that almost lost to Pitt.

Notre Dame would've played Florida in a National Semifinal. I think ND would've stood at least a halfway decent chance in that game. ND beat Stanford at home (and you can bitch and complain all about the last play all you want, but if you watch the replay, you'll see that, well, the ND players disengage and run away because the whistle blew before he crosses the plane) while Oregon didn't. ND beat Oklahoma on the road very similarly to how Kansas State did. Kansas State got blown out by Baylor. Did they have some close calls they probably shouldn't have? Yeah, the Pitt game was a total disaster. But once again, people weren't bitching (before the bowls) that Florida almost lost to ULL and that they didn't deserve to be 3 because of it.

There's one team you can say is definitely better than Notre Dame and it's Alabama. We can argue the merits of really everyone who will finish in the top five when it's all set and done. But football is a funny game and one based a lot on match-ups and whose style of play comes out on top. It's how South Carolina can drill Georgia, Florida can drill South Carolina, and then have Georgia beat Florida on a day where the Gators looked really bad. In the current system, it's extremely hard to play for a national championship.

We can say what we want about wanting a playoff, but will it really prove who's the best team out there? Or will it just prove who had the best draw in the playoff to suit their strengths? If we're using the above as an example (and assuming USC, UF, and UGA are all relatively equal talent-wise, a fair assumption), South Carolina would stand a much better chance at winning the National Championship if Georgia was on their side of the bracket than if Florida was and you can draw the same comparisons for each team on the list.

Let's say we had an eight-team playoff this year with all top-15 conference champions included plus the next-highest at-larges. That playoff would've had the following teams... ND, Bama, Florida, Oregon, K-State, Stanford, FSU, and NIU. Would we have been happy with the possibility of a two-loss ACC team winning a national championship simply because they got hot and had a favorable schedule of opponents?

Yes because they would've earned it. FSU would have to beat 3 great teams to get there. If they manage to do that, they deserve the title. Are you saying that we shouldn't have an NCAA tournament? Do you want a committee to just pick the two best teams and have them face off?

b0b5d4f702adf623d75285ca50ee7632.jpg
Why you make fun of me? I make concept for Auburn champions and you make fun of me. I cry tears.
Chopping off the dicks of Filipino boys and embracing causes that promote bigotry =/= strong moral character.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Each game is separate unto itself.

Florida beat four 10+ win teams this year, and nearly lost a home game to freakin' Louisiana-Lafayette (a decent Sun Belt team, but not a team that should be competitive in a top SEC venue) and got smashed by Louisville in the Sugar Bowl. Football is weird sometimes.

Too add on what you said, Louisville lost to UConn and Syracuse which the upset more shocking (Syracuse blew Louisville out and UConn just stopped them for most of the game).

Orlando%20Magic_zpsjn8kx3lf.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lay off the homer juice, kid. Syracuse's win over UofL wasn't "shocking." Syracuse had the best passing attack in the Big East (and a pretty good one nationally) and at that point in the season the Cards' defense wouldn't have stopped a three year old from stealing their candy.

Athletic Director: KTU Blue Grassers Football

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They didn't get it right because Notre Dame was obviously not the second best team in the nation. Even if they deserved to get in, the BCS failed to bring the best two teams in the nation in a matchup.

I do not disagree that the BCS is better than the last system we had. I'm saying that what we have right now is not good enough. We need a playoff of at least 8 teams.

You honestly think that Notre Dame would've made it out of the first round? Did you not watch them all season, and in the national championship game? This is the same team that almost lost to Pitt.

You can't just say X-team doesn't deserve to play for the national championship after-the-fact. That's not how this thing works. To keep arguing that point is, for lack of a better word, stupid. Notre Dame clearly had the worthy credentials to be allowed to play for the national championship. Losing by 1 point or 28 points doesn't change that.

As for your FantasyLand scenario, there's really no point in getting involved with that, since there's no 4- or 8-team playoff for 2012. It's stupid to fantasize about a what-if playoff format for 2012, and for that matter, 2013.

Again.....don't be an idiot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They didn't get it right because Notre Dame was obviously not the second best team in the nation. Even if they deserved to get in, the BCS failed to bring the best two teams in the nation in a matchup.

I do not disagree that the BCS is better than the last system we had. I'm saying that what we have right now is not good enough. We need a playoff of at least 8 teams.

You honestly think that Notre Dame would've made it out of the first round? Did you not watch them all season, and in the national championship game? This is the same team that almost lost to Pitt.

You can't just say X-team doesn't deserve to play for the national championship after-the-fact. That's not how this thing works. To keep arguing that point is, for lack of a better word, stupid. Notre Dame clearly had the worthy credentials to be allowed to play for the national championship. Losing by 1 point or 28 points doesn't change that.

As for your FantasyLand scenario, there's really no point in getting involved with that, since there's no 4- or 8-team playoff for 2012. It's stupid to fantasize about a what-if playoff format for 2012, and for that matter, 2013.

Again.....don't be an idiot.

I am not denying that Notre Dame wasn't the "correct" selection. I'm saying that the BCS failed because Notre Dame turned out not to be one of the two best teams in the nation. And yes, you can make that judgement after the fact, because if the computer succeeded, then we would've had a good game. The point is that it's silly to think that you can know who the best teams in the nation are unless they play each other.

b0b5d4f702adf623d75285ca50ee7632.jpg
Why you make fun of me? I make concept for Auburn champions and you make fun of me. I cry tears.
Chopping off the dicks of Filipino boys and embracing causes that promote bigotry =/= strong moral character.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not disagree that the BCS is better than the last system we had. I'm saying that what we have right now is not good enough. We need a playoff of at least 8 teams.

You honestly think that Notre Dame would've made it out of the first round? Did you not watch them all season, and in the national championship game? This is the same team that almost lost to Pitt.

You have some extremely poor logic.

A playoff system really doesn't reward the best team throughout the season...it rewards the most surging (and healthiest) team in the playoffs.

You can't make the argument that an "almost lost" to Pitt means Notre Dame wasn't one of the two best teams.

I am not denying that Notre Dame wasn't the "correct" selection. I'm saying that the BCS failed because Notre Dame turned out not to be one of the two best teams in the nation. And yes, you can make that judgement after the fact, because if the computer succeeded, then we would've had a good game.

Alabama and Notre Dame were two of the best teams after the regular season ended. You make the bad assumption that the two best teams in all of college football will play a close game every time. Football doesn't work that way.

Smart is believing half of what you hear. Genius is knowing which half.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.