LITTLEBLACKDOG.COM

I am so sick and tired of reading (and hearing) that Auburn should get a share of the national title.

After last night's squeked out victory I think they are far from it. Three trips inside of the 10 netted three FGs (no TDs). They gave up a HUGE play to VTech late and snuck away with a 3-point win. On top of that, if VTech hadn't tried to go fro it from the 2, or missed that FG, it would have gone the other way.

I understand they were undefeated. I still think they deserve to be No. 2 when the season is over, but they beat the 9th ranked team in the country (barely). Shouldn't the team that beats the 1st or 2nd ranked team be more deserving? And what about Utah? They killed a BCS conference team (albeit Pitt) and no one is throwing their name around.

Auburn is a great team, but not national champs.....

Posted: Tue Jan 04, 2005 4:54 pm Post subject:

If Auburn had started the pre-season polls in the top 5, they would have been one of the two teams in tonight's FedEx Orange Bowl.

I'm expecting OU to blow out USC tonight.

Division IA college football needs a playoff system. How much more obvious could this be?

edit: Sorry, Nattiebo!

Posted: Tue Jan 04, 2005 5:00 pm Post subject:

yeah i think they shoudl play each other...

I'm not convinced that USC or Oklahoma State are better than auburn... they never go up against each other...

east side v. west side, basically... kinda like tupac v. biggy smalls... j/k.

seriously though the bcs bs has to go... need playoffs... It's not fair to say that Auburn is not equal or better or much worse than USC or OSU till they go head to head... battle royale

Posted: Tue Jan 04, 2005 5:31 pm Post subject:

forgiive me for i have sinned.

i mean OU not OSU

Posted: Tue Jan 04, 2005 9:18 pm Post subject:

nattiebo wrote:
seriously though the bcs bs has to go... need playoffs... It's not fair to say that Auburn is not equal or better or much worse than USC or OSU till they go head to head... battle royale

So the fact that the AP and Coaches both thought that OU was better than Auburn means nothing?

Fans just want conrtoversy. The only doable playoff would be a 4 team system. And what happens if you have say 1 undefeated, 2 one loss teams, and like 5 two loss teams. Again how do you chose?

And let's say one of those two loss teams won the playoff. Should a two loss team deserve the NC over a one loss team?

No matter what system you use, there will be people or situations who cause controversy.

USC just ROLLED OU. By 30+ points....Auburn beat VTech by 3. How is that comparable?

Posted: Tue Jan 04, 2005 10:45 pm Post subject:

An 8-team playoff would be easy. Even a 16-team playoff could be managed within the current timing of the post-season bowl games.

Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2005 4:25 am Post subject:

Oh, my pet pieve...

Quote:
So the fact that the AP and Coaches both thought that OU was better than Auburn means nothing?

um... no... did you quote me as saying that? Ummm, NO. I think that's great if they said that OU is better than Auburn, whoopteedoo... I think freakin Kansas basketball is overrated every year and coaches and AP rank them high every year... then they go and play someone outside of their conference and lose...

I'm just all about there being a playoff system... OK, you coaches and AP who think that OU (who happened to not show up for the 2nd year in a row in the bowl game) should get a chance to prove themselves, and go head to head...

Quote:
Fans just want conrtoversy. The only doable playoff would be a 4 team system. And what happens if you have say 1 undefeated, 2 one loss teams, and like 5 two loss teams. Again how do you chose?

Strength of schedule...

Quote:
USC just ROLLED OU. By 30+ points....Auburn beat VTech by 3. How is that comparable?

Ok, gosh, this is annoying... So what if Auburn only beat VTech by 3... first of all, Virginia tech has always been a tough team, and secondly, haven't you heard of other teams playing down to the level of their competition? To me, your point is as silly as saying ... "Duke beat Clemson only by 8 points, while Illinois beat Florida A & M by 31... Illinois must be better." yeah...

Playoffs... 8 teams is my vote.

Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2005 5:27 am Post subject:

No playoffs!

I rather enjoy the argument over who's number one as multiple teams finish undefeated this year, or who should be playing in the game to determine the BCS champions.

I don't think Auburn deserves it anymore than Utah does. but I do like all the bickering about the BCS.. I'm just evil that way.

Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2005 5:47 am Post subject:

Personally I think that USC is far better than any other team out there, and if you're not #1, then who cares where you are, but that's just my thought...

Again, I vote for playoffs.

Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2005 10:50 pm Post subject:

nattiebo- you said strength of schedule. Isn't that how it works now? The computers factor that in.

16 team playoff is somewhat ridiculous. You figure a team can't play moer than once a week. That means you need 4 weeks to get a champ. The reason tehre is a 2-3 week layoff generall with the bowls is because of final exams. So that means it would run until like mid January. This means first off, conflicting with the NFL playoffs, something TV networks DO NOT want to worry about. Plus it makes the season longer. That ends up creating problems all over the place. Too many to name. Money would be a big issue though.

From a fan's perspective a playoff is the answer, btu there is so much more involved.

Then on top of that I still see problems. If you do a 4-team or 8-team playoff there will be arguments about who belongs. There were 10 teams this year with 2 losses or less (post bowl games, I think, and like more than 12 with 2 prebowl game). So that means that it wno't be clearcut which teams should be in. And you list off this criteria of how to narrow teams down and then I say, isn't that what we are already doing?

More teams doesn't stop the controversy. It would only create more.

I like this idea of a committee and I am anxious to see how it works out over the next year or so. Let's give it a chance.

IMHO, within the next 10 years a playoff will happen.

Posted: Thu Jan 06, 2005 3:20 am Post subject:

Division II and Division III manage to have a playoff system. Why wouldn't it be possible for Division IA ?

The New Orleans Bowl was played on December 14.

Posted: Thu Jan 06, 2005 4:28 am Post subject:

Quote:
16 team playoff is somewhat ridiculous.

who mentioned anything about a 16 team playoff? Am I missing something?

Quote:
Too many to name.

Name just a few then, please.

Quote:
IMHO, within the next 10 years a playoff will happen.

Then why delay the inevitable?

My big issue is that there are 28 bowl games... So then these coaches argue, "well I made it to a bowl game this year" when they are defending themselves and pointing out their succes... yeah, you, and 55 other teams, way to go, coach.

How many bcs bowls are there? Why don't they take the same criteria that they use for the top 4 bowl games and throw those 8 teams into a playoff system to battle it out and see who survives the whole thing? That will leave the undefeated teams defeated, and not whining about why they are not #1. Just a thought...

Posted: Thu Jan 06, 2005 7:52 am Post subject:

nattiebo wrote:

Name just a few then, please.

Well like I already said, money would be the biggest. If you extended the season by lets say two weeks. Suddenly you have more practice time and expenses for staff and facilitie go up. So does the risk of injury, and academics getting affected.

Granted teams would make a lot of money playing in the extra game provided they could fit them in. As I already mentioned the NFL playoffs start this week (the week after bowls end). That isn't really a coindence I'm sure. If a TV network had to pick between college and pro, pro wins everytime.

Quote:

Then why delay the inevitable?

My big issue is that there are 28 bowl games... So then these coaches argue, "well I made it to a bowl game this year" when they are defending themselves and pointing out their succes... yeah, you, and 55 other teams, way to go, coach.

I am not anti-playoff. I'm sorry if that is the way I have come off. I am playing Devil's advocate. When they created the BCS it was suppose to tbe answer. It wasn't. All am saying is that a lot of problems that happen now could happen with a playoff as well.

Quote:

How many bcs bowls are there? Why don't they take the same criteria that they use for the top 4 bowl games and throw those 8 teams into a playoff system to battle it out and see who survives the whole thing? That will leave the undefeated teams defeated, and not whining about why they are not #1. Just a thought...

There are 4 BCS bowls. I won't get too deep into the criteria for making it (although sadly I know the criteria by heart), but basically it's the conference champs from the 6 "major" conferences as well as 2 at large bids. So thats the champs from the Pac10, Big10, Big12, ACC, SEC, and Big East. If you want the biggest flaw of the current system, it's prolly that rule. Pitt qualified despite having 3 losses going into their embarassing loss with Utah. If you look at the week 7 BCS rankings, the top 8 teams are the 7 of the top 8 from the two polls. If those 8 teams had played in a playoff that probably would have made sense. The logisitics of an 8 team playoff are tough though.

And what about a time when the rankings aren't so clear cut. Pre-bowl there were only about 12 teams with 2 losses or less. How do you pick 8 of those? And what happens when their are more? If there are 20 teams with 2 losses or less? I know you are going to say, "use the same criteria as now" and my response is, then why not keep what we have?

Yes it would have been nice to see Auburn and USC play now, but that's not how it works. I agree that to some extent Auburn had no control over who they played or how well the teams they played, played against other teams, but playoff or not the same issue is going to come up. Plus with a what if a two loss team won the playoff? Do they really deserve it over a team that hadn't lost until the playoff? I don't hear anyone making an argument for a one loss team as the national champ?

The current system isn't perfect, but is there really a perfect system? A playoff sounds easy, but in the long run will it be that much better than this? I think that this is something college people have considered. I think if they thought it was the perfect soultion they would hve done it by now, I mean it would mean more games (which means more money) and it would take away teh controversy.

Besides, what would we have to argue about? Cool

Posted: Thu Jan 06, 2005 8:04 am Post subject:

Quote:
And what about a time when the rankings aren't so clear cut. Pre-bowl there were only about 12 teams with 2 losses or less. How do you pick 8 of those? And what happens when their are more? If there are 20 teams with 2 losses or less? I know you are going to say, "use the same criteria as now" and my response is, then why not keep what we have?

yeah i say use the same criteria as now... and don't keep what we have b/c we need to take the winners of the 4 bowls, and determine who the best team is... have them go head to head.

Posted: Thu Jan 06, 2005 4:56 pm Post subject:

Take the top 8 ranked teams and seed them into playoffs like so:
December 17
8 vs 1 = A
5 vs 4 = B
7 vs 2 = C
6 vs 3 = D

December 25
A vs B = E
C vs D = F

January 1
E vs F = Champions

Oops! We've actually decided the championship on the field in a week less than the current bowl BS takes.