College Football - Early Season Fun

[Drake Tungsten]

Come on, Tulsa...

[Guynemer]

Utah should have played for the title last year, period. The fact that a team can go undefeated, and still have zero change to win the national championship, makes the entire discussion of national champions an absolute farce.

It was just as bad when Auburn went undefeated a few years ago.


The solution is simple. Any and all conference champions with a maximum of one loss gets put into a playoff. The regular season still means something, and each of the teams in the playoffs would have a legit claim to title. Some years, there might only be two teams; some years, five or six. However many there are, let them settle it on the field if we must crown a national champion. If having a national champion isn't necessary, then we can keep doing what we are doing; let's just stop calling them national champions, because that phrase is currently meaningless.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Utah should have played for the title last year, period.

Sorry, I can't agree with you there.

The fact that a team can go undefeated, and still have zero change to win the national championship, makes the entire discussion of national champions an absolute farce.

It is an entire farce. But when a team with a schedule far, far less impressive than Oklahoma's (or Texas's) gets to play for the national title, that appears to be even more of a farce, IMO.

It was just as bad when Auburn went undefeated a few years ago.

That was the year with 3 undefeateds, each from major conferences with strong schedules; so no, not really.

If having a national champion isn't necessary, then we can keep doing what we are doing; let's just stop calling them national champions, because that phrase is currently meaningless.

Or we could have kept the old system, with bowl tie ins and a subjective national champion. But people wanted a more representative national champion, thinking it'd be less subjective... bleh.

[Drake Tungsten]

Damn. Boise wins...

[Guynemer]

Or we could have kept the old system, with bowl tie ins and a subjective national champion. But people wanted a more representative national champion, thinking it'd be less subjective... bleh.

I don't think anyone wanted this system. This system of picking a "national champion" is every bit as idiotic and inane as the pre-BCS days.

[Drake Tungsten]

BCS

Pre-BCS

Playoffs

[Guynemer]

As I said: if you don't want a true national champion, I respect that position.

If you do want a true national champion, you are out of your freaking mind.

[Drake Tungsten]

There's no such thing as a true national champion.

[SlowwHand]

Here's an idea. Assemble all teams that are under consideration, then keep talking.
The last team to fall asleep or run off screaming wins.

[MRT144]

There's no such thing as a true national champion.

And there never should be, but the BCS reinforces the concept and it keeps a team like Utah from actually being able to prove they might belong on the big stage at all. Ming is right on the money in that their reward was playing a loser Alabama and smoked them. That just doesn't sit right with me.

I don't want a playoff per se, I just want a team like Utah, Boise State, TCU, to get a shot at proving they belong by playing the best in a bowl game.

[Drake Tungsten]

Boise got its chance to prove it belonged by beating Oklahoma. Utah got its chance by beating Alabama. If you don't care that Boise and Utah didn't get a chance at the title (and you just want them to have a shot to prove they belong, right?), then you have nothing to complain about.

[SlowwHand]

But it's how they get to the Bowl game, also. You have to respect a team in a strong conference, number one. If they schedule blow off games, fine, but it should be considered when making the rankings.
Just as a for instance, if USC and Texas finished undefeated, but USC had played El Paso and Lehigh, while Texas had played LSU and Miami, wouldn't all that come into play? Pac 10 < Big 12, but if you assume them equal, the non conference games should be considerered. I know I said it before with different words, but if there are no playoffs, it needs to be this way.

[MRT144]

Boise got its chance to prove it belonged by beating Oklahoma. Utah got its chance by beating Alabama. If you don't care that Boise and Utah didn't get a chance at the title (and you just want them to have a shot to prove they belong, right?), then you have nothing to complain about.

Utah deserved better than Bama. Bama is a consistently overhyped tomato can.

[SlowwHand]

Ohio State, for one, is that. Alabama is not. Again, the conference comes into play.

[MRT144]

Ohio State, for one, is that. Alabama is not. Again, the conference comes into play.

Do you have Alzheimer's Disease?