Where do you stand on the GREAT ISSUE: Playoffs?

All I have to say is the Big 10's Director is a Pussy. Sorry if I make someone mad. Not playing for a conference Championship is weak. Add one team. Hell, add App. St. I'm sure they wouldn't mind beating those weak teams every year. Once you add the one team. Then have a conference Championship. It would let your teams play a little longer. That way, they wouldn't have to wait so long after they sneak into a title game to play again. At least that's the reason I always hear from the fans. We had to much time off, blah, blah, blah. There is one way to correct it. It's stated above. Grow a set, add a team, and play like men.

Like I said, the best team in the country in ANY sport rarely wins a playoff. Sure the Colts won the Superbowl last year. Who was the best team in the NFL? The San Diego Chargers. In 2006 the best teams in the country were arguably the Detroit Tigers and the New York Yankees. The winner of MLB's playoff was the 83-79 St. Louis Cardinals. In 2005 the best team in the NFL was the Indianapolis Colts. Who won the Superbowl? The 6-seeded Pittsburgh Steelers.

A playoff does not prove that you are the best team in the country; it only proves that you can beat one particular team on one particular day. Was South Carolina better than us this year? No. But they were able to beat us on one particular day in September. Were we better than Tech last year? Absolutely not. But we were able to beat them.

The true solution -- if you really wanted to prove it on the field, that is -- would be a World Cup-type round robin tournament where everybody really does play everybody. Actually, it'd be better to employ something like what the College World Series does. But that would extend the football season by about eight weeks. And I don't care what you think about wanting more college football; nobody in his right mind wants those kids to have to play into March.

Stat -- the best team in the country rarely wins the NCAA Tournament, held up as the gold standard for college playoffs. In fact, a one-seed (of which there are four) wins the tournament only 49% of the time. That means that the number one team in the country (all things being equal, which they are not) only wins the tournament 12.25% of the time. Does that sound like it works?

That's the real reason why I'm against a playoff. Hell, it's the real reason I'm against recognizing a national champion. In my mind, if you win the SEC, you're the champ by default. When you can prove to me that another conference is equal (the Big 12 was close in the late 90s and early 2000s, and the Pac-10 is getting closer although it's not equal yet), then the champ of that conference can play the SEC champ to be called the best team out of the 119.

But until then, I'll take my regular season and my bowl season and sit back with my family and eat till I'm fat and asleep in front of the Poulan Weedeater Independence Bowl in a warm sweater with my son asleep in my lap. And if there's something wrong with that, I really don't care. I'll be a 28-year-old codger who believes in the old-fashioned way of doing things if I want to. Now I've got to go crank up my Model T and get down to the haberdasher. Toodle-oo!

By the way, I'll be posting my logical mock-playoff after the final BCS rankings come out on Sunday. So on top of being a set-in-my-ways curmudgeon before I'm 30, I'm also a filthy hypocrite. Now if you'll pardon me, I have to go vote for Bob Dole for President.

dapolla wrote:

Like I said, the best team in the country in ANY sport rarely wins a playoff. Sure the Colts won the Superbowl last year. Who was the best team in the NFL? The San Diego Chargers. In 2006 the best teams in the country were arguably the Detroit Tigers and the New York Yankees. The winner of MLB's playoff was the 83-79 St. Louis Cardinals. In 2005 the best team in the NFL was the Indianapolis Colts. Who won the Superbowl? The 6-seeded Pittsburgh Steelers.

A playoff does not prove that you are the best team in the country; it only proves that you can beat one particular team on one particular day. Was South Carolina better than us this year? No. But they were able to beat us on one particular day in September. Were we better than Tech last year? Absolutely not. But we were able to beat them.

The true solution -- if you really wanted to prove it on the field, that is -- would be a World Cup-type round robin tournament where everybody really does play everybody. Actually, it'd be better to employ something like what the College World Series does. But that would extend the football season by about eight weeks. And I don't care what you think about wanting more college football; nobody in his right mind wants those kids to have to play into March.

Stat -- the best team in the country rarely wins the NCAA Tournament, held up as the gold standard for college playoffs. In fact, a one-seed (of which there are four) wins the tournament only 49% of the time. That means that the number one team in the country (all things being equal, which they are not) only wins the tournament 12.25% of the time. Does that sound like it works?

That's the real reason why I'm against a playoff. Hell, it's the real reason I'm against recognizing a national champion. In my mind, if you win the SEC, you're the champ by default. When you can prove to me that another conference is equal (the Big 12 was close in the late 90s and early 2000s, and the Pac-10 is getting closer although it's not equal yet), then the champ of that conference can play the SEC champ to be called the best team out of the 119.

But until then, I'll take my regular season and my bowl season and sit back with my family and eat till I'm fat and asleep in front of the Poulan Weedeater Independence Bowl in a warm sweater with my son asleep in my lap. And if there's something wrong with that, I really don't care. I'll be a 28-year-old codger who believes in the old-fashioned way of doing things if I want to. Now I've got to go crank up my Model T and get down to the haberdasher. Toodle-oo!

Man I love me some Dapolla, but this line of reasoning is simply not correct. More time that not the best team does win. How do we know? Because they won. Who we thought was best before hand is not always the case. No one in America not named LT or Schottenheimer thought the Chargers were the best team in football last year. They had a great record from a cream puff division, but everyone knew the best teams were still the Pats and Colts.

South Carolina was better than we were early in the year.

The Tigers lost because they sat around for nearly two weeks. That long layoff never helps. It happened again with Colorado. Neither example is relevant to football as the time of between games is consistent for everyone.

No one here wants to do away with nostalgia. We want to do away with moron sports writers deciding who get s to play in what game.......or coaches assistants that no one has ever heard of. The issue for me is not some much crowning the champion, but having valid teams in the hunt and letting the teams decide it.

A plus one will be a start. That would be a de facto 4 team playoff. I could die a happy man with that. It is a rare season where the #5 team would have a beef that they are the true #1. After we get the plus 1 then we can work on the 8 teams playoff.

flyindawg wrote:

All I have to say is the Big 10's Director is a Pussy. Sorry if I make someone mad. Not playing for a conference Championship is weak. Add one team. Hell, add App. St. I'm sure they wouldn't mind beating those weak teams every year. Once you add the one team. Then have a conference Championship. It would let your teams play a little longer. That way, they wouldn't have to wait so long after they sneak into a title game to play again. At least that's the reason I always hear from the fans. We had to much time off, blah, blah, blah. There is one way to correct it. It's stated above. Grow a set, add a team, and play like men.

Wait until he vetos the Rose Bowl Committee from accepting us. Think you hate him now? Just wait 3 days

Flyindawg, you are correct, Sir!