They just beat one of the other top teams in the country, but this games shows they had no business being in the title game? Yet I guess you believe Bama deserves to be? Even though they already lost to that LSU team, and lost to them while playing on their own home field? With State winning this game, this shows that they probably deserved a chance just as much as Bama did. It's a real shame that there are no playoffs in college football. I mean I do understand why Bama is in it, however its not a fair argument for them to be in either. If people say that the regular season is the playoffs, then Bama lost in the playoffs on their own home turf. If anything if the regular season is the playoffs, then we should have just crowned LSU the National Champions already. That probably would have been the most fair thing to do, more so than using opinions to decide who plays them.

A "Plus One game". Let Bama play the Cowboys last nite and the winner in two weeks play LSU, I agree with that. But I have to go with the cars I have in my garage and drive them and we play LSU in a rematch. And you made some very nice points.

Hard for me to criticize the Stanford coach for playing conservatively. If you're a top five team & you line up a middle-of-the-field 35-yard FG attempt for your kicker, he's supposed to hit it. I'm sure the coach is second-guessing himself, as are the Cardinal fans, but he did what I would have done.

Good move in the Pros and you see it played like this all the time and it works, but a Pro kicker compared to a "redshirt freshman", well its a huge difference.

While I would have been intrigued to see OSU's offense against LSU's defense I still think the championship game is correct. I think Bama and LSU would have defeated OSU and Stanford.

 

 

Playoffs would be awesome but the BCS got it right. Again.

They just beat one of the other top teams in the country, but this games shows they had no business being in the title game? Yet I guess you believe Bama deserves to be? Even though they already lost to that LSU team, and lost to them while playing on their own home field? With State winning this game, this shows that they probably deserved a chance just as much as Bama did. It's a real shame that there are no playoffs in college football. I mean I do understand why Bama is in it, however its not a fair argument for them to be in either. If people say that the regular season is the playoffs, then Bama lost in the playoffs on their own home turf. If anything if the regular season is the playoffs, then we should have just crowned LSU the National Champions already. That probably would have been the most fair thing to do, more so than using opinions to decide who plays them.

 

 

OSU had a chance and they blew a lead against a 6-6 Iowa State team. Bama lost at home to the #1 team in the nation by 3 in OT in a game in which neither team scored a touchdown. Why is it not obvious who the more deserving team is? Just because they already played is not a good enough excuse, IMO. The job of the BCS is to figure out who the two best teams are and the BCS did what it was supposed to do. It put the two best teams there. OSU beats Iowa State like they should have then they would have been deserving and we would have watched Bama and Stanford last night. OSU can only blame themselves. They knew what they had to do before the season started and they did what they were supposed to do every week except for one and it cost them.

I would love to see a plus one.

 

1v4 and 3v2 winners play for title.

I would love to see a plus one.

 

1v4 and 3v2 winners play for title.

 

Thats what I want. Have a final four. That would get rid of all the criticism, or atleast close to all.

As I just posted in the Georgia game thread, Stanford playing for a 35 yard field goal at the end of regulation instead of continuing to run offense and go for the TD is just not smart, especially with a redshirt freshman kicker who had already missed one in the game from 41.

 

I agree. I just don't understand the decision to eagerly accept a FG of that length. It is one thing to play it safe with your playcalling, but they just mailed it in. And, ultimately it cost them the game.

 

Georgia did the same thing yesterday and it ended up costing them as well. I believe they lined up on second down in OT to kick a 40 yard FG.

 

I also question the decision by Stanford to run the ball twice leaving Luck with a 3rd and long in OT when the guy had only thrown 4 incomplete passes all game. It seemed similar to Alabama's sequence of play calls in the OT against LSU. They took the ball out of the hands of their best players, and both teams eventually ended up in bad third and long situations that resulted in long FG attempts that were missed.

 

Unfortunately for Stanford, Mike Gundy and OSU has enough sense to try to score rather than line up and kick a 40 yard FG immediately.

Thats what I want. Have a final four. That would get rid of all the criticism, or atleast close to all.

 

Sure it will. You keep thinking that.

Would it have been too much to ask for Gundy to punch that last one in instead of kicking the field goal to let me cover?!

 

Either way this was going to be the bad beat game. If you had Stanford you felt good all game, until that last score. If you had Ok-St you thought you snatched a win out of thin air. I read it was a $30M swing in Vegas alone. Worldwide it's estimated way more than that.

Sure it will. You keep thinking that.

 

 

I was thinking the same thing.

While I would have been intrigued to see OSU's offense against LSU's defense I still think the championship game is correct. I think Bama and LSU would have defeated OSU and Stanford.

 

 

Playoffs would be awesome but the BCS got it right. Again.

 

OSU had a chance and they blew a lead against a 6-6 Iowa State team. Bama lost at home to the #1 team in the nation by 3 in OT in a game in which neither team scored a touchdown. Why is it not obvious who the more deserving team is? Just because they already played is not a good enough excuse, IMO. The job of the BCS is to figure out who the two best teams are and the BCS did what it was supposed to do. It put the two best teams there. OSU beats Iowa State like they should have then they would have been deserving and we would have watched Bama and Stanford last night. OSU can only blame themselves. They knew what they had to do before the season started and they did what they were supposed to do every week except for one and it cost them.

 

Your last sentence in your first post I quoted says it all. Which is that you THINK Bama would have beaten both those teams. Which they might have, but no one knows that for sure. We have no idea if Bama goes undefeated either while playing in the Big 12 or Pac 12. Yes there is a good reason to believe they would have, but we don't know that they would have. Once again it is just opinion. Bama had their shot just as well as Oklahoma State did. Bama had LSU on their OWN home field and couldn't get it done. So why are they more deserving to get a rematch now at a neutral field when they couldn't do it on their own home field?

 

I do think Bama is the 2nd best team in the country too, however that is not what should determine it. We have NO IDEA if the BCS got it right by putting Bama in there. We just think they did, which once again is opinion. It's a shame that we end great college football season's, with people's opinions determining just two teams who should play in the Title game.

Sure it will. You keep thinking that.

 

I agree a final four wouldn't settle it. You need to have 8 teams in it. Whoever wins their conference championship in the 6 BCS Bowls are automatically in, and then two at larges. Yes there probably would be some controversy with the at larges still. However at least all the teams in the BCS conferences know exactly what they have to do to get a chance at the title, and that is winning their conference. Right now realistically we could have 6 undefeated teams from the BCS conferences. Which definitely would not guarntee that a team gets a shot at the title then. So saying each team knows what they have to do before the season starts is wrong, because a team could go undefeated and still not get a shot. Giving automatic bids to the 6 BCS conference champions let people know exactly what they have to do to get in. So if they don't end up getting an at large they don't have much of an argument, because they would have had a fair shot to get in if they just won their conference. Since they failed that then puts them at the mercy of a selection committee deciding the two at larges. This also gives a team like Boise, TCU, etc a shot to possibly play for the title as an at large team.

I agree a final four wouldn't settle it. You need to have 8 teams in it. Whoever wins their conference championship in the 6 BCS Bowls are automatically in, and then two at larges. Yes there probably would be some controversy with the at larges still. However at least all the teams in the BCS conferences know exactly what they have to do to get a chance at the title, and that is winning their conference. Right now realistically we could have 6 undefeated teams from the BCS conferences. Which definitely would not guarntee that a team gets a shot at the title then. So saying each team knows what they have to do before the season starts is wrong, because a team could go undefeated and still not get a shot. Giving automatic bids to the 6 BCS conference champions let people know exactly what they have to do to get in. So if they don't end up getting an at large they don't have much of an argument, because they would have had a fair shot to get in if they just won their conference. Since they failed that then puts them at the mercy of a selection committee deciding the two at larges. This also gives a team like Boise, TCU, etc a shot to possibly play for the title as an at large team.

 

Did you watch any of the games yesterday?

Did you watch any of the games yesterday?

 

Yes I did, I watched most of the games actually. Your point is? I mean in a playoff system we could have still been seeing great games like them. Then guess what seeing more great games the next week on the way to crowning a Champion by their play on the field. Rather than based on opinion.

 

An example of what I just said would be if they ranked the teams after the 6 conference champions and at large selections are made would be:

 

1. LSU

2. Bama

3. Oklahoma State

4. Stanford

5. Wisconsin

6. Oregon

7. Clemson

8. West Virginia

 

Would have a 1st round of LSU/WVU, Bama/Clemson, OSU/Oregon, and Stanford/Wisconsin. That is some good exciting matchups especially the last two. Then that would set up a possible LSU/OSU or Oregon matchup in the Semi's, and a Bama/Stanford or Wisconsin matcup in the other one. Then we very well could end up back up with LSU/Bama again or maybe not. At least it all would be determined on the field with the best teams in the country, the teams who won their conference and two at larges. Which by the way the could have done the 1st round the next week after the season ended. Then having that break before the Semi' and the Semi's being in BCS Bowls. So you also keep all the other bowls too for people who didn't make the playoffs.

 

So yes the bowl games yesterday were exciting, however imagine how much more exciting it would be watching those games. Games that will help determine who the National Champion is.

Yes I did, I watched most of the games actually. Your point is? I mean in a playoff system we could have still been seeing great games like them. Then guess what seeing more great games the next week on the way to crowning a Champion by their play on the field. Rather than based on opinion.

 

An example of what I just said would be if they ranked the teams after the 6 conference champions and at large selections are made would be:

 

1. LSU

2. Bama

3. Oklahoma State

4. Stanford

5. Wisconsin

6. Oregon

7. Clemson

8. West Virginia

 

Would have a 1st round of LSU/WVU, Bama/Clemson, OSU/Oregon, and Stanford/Wisconsin. That is some good exciting matchups especially the last two. Then that would set up a possible LSU/OSU or Oregon matchup in the Semi's, and a Bama/Stanford or Wisconsin matcup in the other one. Then we very well could end up back up with LSU/Bama again or maybe not. At least it all would be determined on the field with the best teams in the country, the teams who won their conference and two at larges. Which by the way the could have done the 1st round the next week after the season ended. Then having that break before the Semi' and the Semi's being in BCS Bowls. So you also keep all the other bowls too for people who didn't make the playoffs.

 

So yes the bowl games yesterday were exciting, however imagine how much more exciting it would be watching those games. Games that will help determine who the National Champion is.

 

My point?

 

The basic object of college football is not to determined who National Champion is. It's to make money.

 

It took 100 years of college football to get a system that even attempted to get #1 to play #2 in a championship game. Before the BCS, the national champion itself was selected by opinion. There was no championship game. The AP pulled out of the BCS, because they felt their opinion poll was more justified than the combined BCS polls. If it were up to the AP, we'd go back to the old way. It sells more ad time in papers and blogs. Controversy sells. Ask ESPN.

 

I'm sorry, but I'm afraid your solution has been proposed on here, not to mention, by the media many times over the last 10 years. Feel free to look back through the threads. Last I checked, 2006 threads are still reviewable in this forum. I also remember watching a debate on the "Experts" about a playoff, like you propose, before this season.

 

I know this sounds like an echo, too. However, the current system makes too much money for those who sponsor it. Given the attendance, TV ratings, and product sales, the current system is working fine for THEM. If it were more profitable, don't you think we'd already have a playoff? It doesn't matter how exciting you or I think it would be. It doesn't matter how much sense a playoff system makes to us. It doesn't even matter what the NCAA thinks. The bottom line is that those who are in control of the money don't agree with us, and until it can be proven to THEM that a playoff is to a monetary advantage to THEM, a playoff is not going to happen.

 

You can give examples of how great a playoff would be and preach your gospel until you physically turn Kentucky Blue. We can all agree with your premise, too. However, there is no reason for THEM to change THEIR system, if those clamoring for a playoff, support that vary system by continuing to watch the games, attend the games, and buy the products sponsored by those games. The only way to get THEIR attention is to stop supporting THEIR system. By watching the games yesterday, you and I are part of the problem. That's my point.