|
|
FBS Playoff Discussion Thread: Its A College Footbball Playoff
@johnehoover - Stoops just told me on a conf call he's "not for a playoff because it would ruin the bowl system."
@johnehoover - Stoops: "I'd like to see plus 1...four bowls...rotate every 2 yrs which teams are hosting playoff bowls, then the plus-1."
@guerinemig - Stoops says playoff would de-value regular season, kill off bowls, which would thus deprive players of bowl experiences.
@guerinemig - Stoops tells Tim Brando: "The bowl system needs to stay, no matter what the public says."
I agree but I don't like the bowl tie in system. It seems like there have been a lot of ****ty match ups lately. A lot of games that aren't close or shouldn't be close.
2 users like meoveryouxinfinity's post: cdw1212, copperhead
Shut up, Bob
8 users like madbrad's post: BillyOcean, boomersooner53, DHF, Hermit, soonirvana, sperry, The, Yatahaze
**** bowl games.
3 users like BleeOU1's post: Hermit, SoonerCode75, Yatahaze
Just coach, Bob.
Let the experts talk about the Bowl System and how to crown a champion.
And by experts I mean the legions of internet message board posters.
8 users like ibleedcrimson's post: ab5sr, Hermit, Julz, LetsgoSooners82, mgsooner, oorah_okie, OrangeBlossom, rebel
The BCS director was in Weatherford recently and he said don't expect a playoff system any time soon.
The following users like this post: rebel
@davidubben Close
Stoops: "The bowl experience overall is too positive. I'd like to see plus-one. ... Four playoff teams participate in BCS bowls.
Plus 1 = playing the BCS games then selecting the two best teams to play
which is basically different than the 4 team seeded playoff
He says he doesn't want the playoff to ruin the bowl experience
There is a big difference between scrapping the bowls and having a playoff only vs. having a playoff system inclusive of the bowls. If all the meaningless bowl games are maintained for the teams who want a bowl game I don't see how it affects the bowl system at all other than making the semifinal "bowl" games more meaningful in terms of stakes and interest.
2 users like Yuck Fu's post: boomermagic, DirtySouth_Sooner
Bob chiming in with more of hi opinions these days, seems like.
when he was talking about "play-offs" was he talking about Ewww-T football or CFB in general?Originally Posted by azwe
I've got an opinion, Bob...we shouldn't have lost to Baylor and TTech last season.
9 users like traxx's post: ab5sr, Al F***n Swearingen, BleeOU1, boomermagic, DelMarSooner, Hermit, sooner59, SoonerCode75, The
I would hate to deprive any college players of the chance to play in a bowl game in Idaho in December. I mean wont somebody please think about the children???
The following users like this post: RoninSooner
Good, he's right. And yeah, most coaches and players like the bowls.
And if he's talking about "playoff bowls" and different models, he's really against an 8 or 16-team monstrosity that would do exactly what he says it would -- devalue the regular season.
4 users like lash's post: AFS00N3R, rebel, SoonerPT, Van Hammersly
Focus on winning the games to get there, Bob.
The following users like this post: boomermagic
Bob Stoops says he supports a 4 team playoff
@johnehoover - Stoops just told me on a conf call he's "not for a playoff because it would ruin the bowl system."
@johnehoover - Stoops: "I'd like to see plus 1...four bowls...rotate every 2 yrs which teams are hosting playoff bowls, then the plus-1."
@guerinemig - Stoops says playoff would de-value regular season, kill off bowls, which would thus deprive players of bowl experiences.
@guerinemig - Stoops tells Tim Brando: "The bowl system needs to stay, no matter what the public says."
The Bowl season already devalues the regular season
Yep. What a difference a headline can make.
Umm, Bob. The public are the reason you and your peers have a job and why CFB is as huge of a sport as it is. If the public wants the bowls gone, then I'd suggest doing something about it.
And the plus-1 scenario he describes is a playoff, ****uming it happens every year.
And I'm kind of over hearing about the "bowl experiences" for the players. Every other sport seems to get their players to play hard without the carrot of a "bowl experience", why shouldn't football?
And, .......ah nevermind.
The following users like this post: boomermagic
Somebody help me out here. I've never heard any proposal to completely banish the bowl games and fail to see how a 4 team playoff would affect the 'lesser' bowls at all. What is all the talk about "preserving" the bowl system when it is in no danger of being abolished?
Keep the ****ty bowls (minus the financial butt raping the schools that attend them get from the bowls themselves) , I actually enjoy watching all of them during the holiday month, but what do they have to do with a playoff or the MNC?
The following users like this post: Yuck Fu
Bob sensitivity has rubbed off on our players. No wonder we're ****ing soft!
The following users like this post: The
Prohibit NC games from two teams from the same conference like this last year. The game was a dud entertainment wise.
So if he is asked about it he should say "no comment?" Then people would complain/whine/cry about him not behing nice, ahh boo hoo, to the media. Lose/Lose.
It's the Mack Brown way!
If there were a 4-team playoff I wouldn't have a problem with seeing 2 conference opponents. If LSU and Alabama had beaten say OSU and Stanford last year, I would be fine with them playing again for the championship.
The way the system is currently set up, however, that was a sham.
This.
I was asking the "regular season is a playoff" crowd about that last season. The regular season apparently meant nothing since LSU beat Bama on Bama's home field and had to play them again. They split their games but Bama gets the NC.
I think a 4 team playoff is perfect. Any more than that and the regular season does become meaningless. Also, the post season needs to start sooner. A one month layoff between the last reg season game and playoff/NC game is too long. You get a crappy product on the field with that long of a layoff.
So you were for crowning LSU and them not having to play anyone correct? What did Bama do different from what Ok State and Stanford? They all 3 lost a game. Who cares who that game was played against? By what you are saying nobody should have played LSU because they lost a game in the regular season. That's my biggest gripe about it. The BCS NC game devalues the regular season when we don't get two undefeateds matching up, right?
The Bowl system is corrupt and corrupts everyone that ****ociates with it.
5 users like The's post: DHF, Hermit, madbrad, silverwheels, traxx
Not at all. My point is, if the regular season is a playoff, then bama lost their playoff game and should be eliminated. I thought that Okie St. or Stanford was more deserving of a chance than Bama. A rematch gave LSU everything to lose and Bama everything to gain and it gave other teams like Stanford and OSU nothing to gain. The only one this benefited was Bama. But the system is imperfect. I'm not saying that a 4 team playoff would be perfect but I feel that it would be a lot better.
The following users like this post: Spade1000
Then so did Ok State and Stanford. I've never been a person that has said "the season is a playoff". It obviously isn't. It feels more like a playoff than any other regular season because of its post season. Bama did nothing different than Ok State or Stanford (who also didn't win its conference) other than lose to the team that qualified, unquestionably, for the NC game. I guess what I'm saying is Bama was being punished for losing to the best team in the country, regular seasonly speaking of course, and Ok State is rewarded for not having to play LSU.
There is no perfect answer. If you don't wanna punish Bama then you punish LSU by making them play Bama twice. It's difficult to beat the same team (especially a conference team that knows you well) several times in a season. I believe that's why we lost to KU in the 1988 hoops NC. But if you're gonna say it's a playoff, then Bama lost their playoff game. Move on to the next opponent.
The following users like this post: Yuck Fu
Again, I don't call it a playoff. It has the feel of a playoff because, if you lose, your shot of a NC isn't dead but it is diminished and out of your control as a team. Personally I look at like a golf score. Maybe you skulled one off a par 3 tee but it hit the cart path, kicked off a tree and landed on the green. You made your putt for a birdie and carded your first ever 79. In a month it's simply going to be an incredible 79 and you don't look back at that one bad/lucky hole. The end of the season there were three teams that had 1 loss. At that point in time I don't think you look back at who they lost to. They all lost their "playoff game" but, by hook or crook, are now tied with 2 other teams to determine one spot. I absolutely understand when looking from LSU's side where you are coming from. But, when making the case for the #2 team you can't disqualify one team because of who they lost to.
Almost every year the current BCS (two team playoff) ends up in a different predicament that tops the one before. If we go to a playoff that will be the only thing I miss. People trying to rationalize what happened out of a complete cluster**** at the end of the regular season.
I get what you're saying. I do. But for those that say (not you) that the season is a playoff, then if you lost to the team that's going to the Championship game in the playoff, you're out. That would be like saying that it doesn't matter that SF lost to the Giants in the playoffs, they deserve as much to be in the Super Bowl as the Pats.
And for LSU, winning that reg season game meant nothing. In fact, they may have been better off if they lost it. Look at what losing it did for Bama.
lol but I am sure Bob did not bring this up of his own volition I am sure he was asked his opinion.
Shhhh the "experts" are talking
Bravo Bob! Someday you ****tards will understand.
Yea they do have a point Bob should STFU as he is clearly out of his elementI mean how dare he want what is best for the players(celebratory bowl trip each year)
Cut the number of bowl games in about half and you don't even need a playoff.
I'm totally going to YouTube "Jim Mora" right now. .
The following users like this post: dog-knee
Everyone (well, not everyone but the most vocal fans anyway) wanted a championship game and now that they have it, they **** every year about who gets to play in it. Now those same fans that wanted the championship game are very vocal about having a playoff to get to that championship game that they **** about every year.
Do away with the yearly championship game and use the BCS bowls (as Bob suggests) to weed out the undeserving and if at the end, there is only one undefeated team then crown that team champion. If after the BCS bowls are played, a champion can not be decided on January 1st (I doubt we would need one with computers and strength of schedule determining the champion), then have a plus one game with the two top remaining teams to play for the championship two weeks after. I know, the most vocal fans would still **** about it every year.
Nothing much would change from the way the system is now except that instead of choosing two teams that everyone would argue about on the first weekend of December, we would play all the BCS bowls, with no teams getting a bye (like the top two teams do now) and either crowning an undefeated champion on January 1st or playing a plus one game afterwards.
The major change that I would like to see is the computers given more power and the human voters given less. That would've avoided what we saw last year when ESPN lobbied the voters to pick Alabama and LSU in a rematch even before the final whistle was blown in the first Alabama/LSU game.
All we needed 20 years ago was a computer system to counteract the bias of the human voters to decide a champion. We didn't and still don't need a total overhaul of college football. The universities don't want it, the coaches don't want it and the players don't want it. Just a large group of vocal fans and believe me, if those fans stopped going to football games because there was no playoff, there would be hundreds of thousands of fans waiting in line to purchase their tickets.
Whoever said that, even if it was Bob Stoops, is the dumbest ****er on the planet when it comes to college football and how it decides a champion.
Or he just has different priorities than you have as he is a coach and you are simply a fan.....Your brain use it
If you want an end of season tournament that crowns the hottest team at the end of the year a so called champion then so bit it but don't call it a playoff. What we have now is a playoff, I agree with Bob +1 is the way to go.
As a certified Gloomer Doomer it has become apparent to me that Bob simply doesn't want to work overtime. Perhaps he should get time and a half for the playoffs.
If that was case, maybe he would support a playoff. You lose the first round and your season is over before Christmas.
Any of you guys who foam at the mouth because there's no playoff ever think about that? I don't like the idea of OU football being over before I open Christmas gifts.
I agree with Stoops, use the BCS bowls for a playoff system. The bowls are not going away, they're just not. Personally I'm torn between the 2. I want a better system to determine the NC, but I don't want the bowl system to disappear. Using the BCS bowls as a playoff system is the best possible compromise.
The Bowl system doesn't have to disappear at all. They would be just as meaningless as they are now. I'm just not sure we need 70 teams in Bowl games. Doesn't that hurt he season worse than anything?
To me it doesn't. I don't care about the lower bowls nor who makes it or who doesn't. As an OU fan I never say "at least they made a bowl game". If it's not Cotton on up I'm kind of "meh".
The following users like this post: AFS00N3R
Last year we played a team in the Bowl game who had no business being a bowl with that talent and they were competitive with us.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
