College Football - The Bowls!

[GhengisFarb™]

The Big 12 looked like the Wimp 12 after the Bowl games.

[Drake Tungsten]

The Big 12 looked like the Wimp 12 after the Bowl games.

Not Nebraska...

[Drake Tungsten]

A team that loses early has probably improved throughout the season, while a team losing late, all other things equal, is playing at that improved state.

Bull****. Some teams improve over the course of the season, but others don't. Injuries and coaching changes take their toll on any number of teams, certainly enough to make your half-baked theory of "the earlier the loss, the better the team" completely untrue.

Well you sure as **** seem to think so. If there are three teams that are 10-0, and one team loses its star player to injury and loses its last game, you'd say tough luck.

Strawman. The situations aren't comparable in the least.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Drake Tungsten the Kidicious of college football threads.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Some teams improve over the course of the season, but others don't.

Usually it is the case that they do. A few exceptions here or there doesn't change the fact that most teams generally will play at a higher level at the end of the season than in their first few games.

The situations aren't comparable in the least.

Of course they are! Like YOU said:

What if a team loses a star player to injury towards the end of the season, drops a game, but get the player back in time for the bowls? Do you really think that they are less deserving than the other team

I can use the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT, WORD FOR WORD, to describe why a team that has lost one game because its QB got injuried should get a chance against the undefeateds. Why is it any different? How is it NOT comparable?!

Drake Tungsten the Kidicious of college football threads.

[Drake Tungsten]

Of course they are! Like YOU said:

What if a team loses a star player to injury towards the end of the season, drops a game, but get the player back in time for the bowls? Do you really think that they are less deserving than the other team

I can use the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT, WORD FOR WORD, to describe why a team that has lost one game because its QB got injuried should get a chance against the undefeateds. Why is it any different? How is it NOT comparable?!

In my scenario, a previously undefeated team loses one of their last games because of an injured player and ends up with the same record as two other one-loss teams who lost earlier in the season. In that case, I don't think it's fair to punish a team just because they lost late; they all have the same record.

In your scenario, there are three undefeated teams. One of them loses because of an injury and ends up with one loss while the other two, I assume, remain unbeaten. In this case, I would have no qualms about saying the one-loss team is not deserving of a title shot, as they have a worse record than the other two teams.

Obviously, the two situations aren't similar at all. Only a complete ****ing ****** would think that they are the same...

[Ming]

Hey... it's ok to disagree (like we usually do )... but let's stop with the insults...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Obviously, the two situations aren't similar at all.

Of course they are. In one you say it isn't 'fair' to punish a team if they lost late because they lost to an injury. So why is it 'fair' to punish them because of an injury based on the other teams' records?

The fact of the matter is that football includes injuries. It is part of the game. No matter what should you get a pass for 'fairness' if your star player got injured.

[Drake Tungsten]

Of course they are.

All other comments will be excised in deference to Ming...

[Ming]

Thank you Drake

[Drake Tungsten]

What can I say? I'm a really nice guy when I'm drunk...

[Ming]

Hmmm... you're drunk now...

Maybe this would be the best time to try to convince you how mistaken you are on the Bowl System

[Drake Tungsten]

I may be drunk, but I'm not stupid...

[Ming]

Can't blame me for trying

[Drake Tungsten]