College Football 2013 Season

[Tupac Shakur]

A rematch doesn't take away a loss or win from a previous game... It doesn't make that game more meaningless.

Of course it does. LSU beat Alabama last year in the regular season. Once Alabama got into the BCS title game rematch, the result of that regular season game no longer mattered; both teams had an equal chance to win the national championship. Alabama actually benefited from the regular season loss, in fact, as they didn't have to play an extra game like LSU did.

Last year, was a classic example. The BCS pretty much made the regular season meaningless for every conference except one.

How have you still not grasped that a four-team playoff will make travesties like last season's BCS title game more likely to happen? You can't claim to hate last year's BCS title game (especially by claiming that it "made the regular season meaningless") and then support a four-team playoff; it's completely illogical.

I can't even feel contempt for you anymore. I just feel bad, as you clearly don't have the cognitive capacity to intelligibly debate this issue.

[Ming]

Of course it does. LSU beat Alabama last year in the regular season. Once Alabama got into the BCS title game rematch, the result of that regular season game no longer mattered; both teams had an equal chance to win the national championship. Alabama actually benefited from the regular season loss, in fact, as they didn't have to play an extra game like LSU did.

And they got a win for it... they celebrated, the fans celebrated and the game had a national championship feel to it. Tons of national interest for the regular season game. Which really translated to less interest for the actual championship game... Your example just shows that the current BCS system sucks.

How have you still not grasped that a four-team playoff will make travesties like last season's BCS title game more likely to happen? You can't claim to hate last year's BCS title game (especially by claiming that it "made the regular season meaningless") and then support a four-team playoff; it's completely illogical.

Yep... if you replace a crappy system with an equally crappy system, you have similar results... But in the end, you are being illogical. A game in the future doesn't change what happened in the past when it comes to how meaningful the game was to the fans and players at that point in time. The winning team got a win. and the losers lost.

I can't even feel contempt for you anymore. I just feel bad, as you clearly don't have the cognitive capacity to intelligibly debate this issue.

I can't even feel contempt for you anymore. I just feel bad, as you clearly don't have the cognitive capacity to intelligibly debate this issue

We can debate all we want about whatever system that actually get's approved and put in place... but it doesn't make regular season games any more meaningless.
Sure, in hindsight you can make your silly arguments on how a team benefited from a loss... or how a win hurt somebody... but when the game was originally played, it was the most meaningful game to both teams and fans.

[Tupac Shakur]

And they got a win for it...

Yes, LSU got a win that was made irrelevant as soon they were placed in a playoff with Alabama. What a meaningful regular season matchup.

[Ming]

Did they take the win off the record book? Did Alabama fans go home cheering that they now had an easier road to the championship... Did it take away any of the excitement the game generated... Did the BCS game make every game LSU and Alabama played that year irrelevant...

We can argue all we want about how good the current BCS system is... and will continue to argue about whatever system gets put in place... But the regular season will still be the regular season... each game will be important... And wins will wins, and loses will be loses... And what happens in the regular season will be relevant, because it will determine what happens next.

[Tupac Shakur]

Did the BCS game make every game LSU and Alabama played that year irrelevant...

Of course not; it only made the regular season game irrelevant. That's how playoffs work.

Did they take the win off the record book?

Might as well have. LSU's regular season win over Alabama, undefeated regular season, and SEC Championship meant **** all when they faced Alabama again in a title game rematch, because playoff games trump regular season games. Maybe if we repeat this enough you'll figure it out...

[Ming]

And gee... how did they qualify for the BS BCS game... oh, it was based on the regular season... that's what got them there. So I guess the regular season isn't irrelevant.

We can argue all we want about the BCS system... that's the problem, not a play off.

Maybe if we repeat this enough you'll figure it out.

[Guynemer]

You are missing the point, Ming.

Just about any playoff proposal (other than mine) virtually guarantees playoff rematches, rendering previous regular season games meaningless.

And the current system IS a playoff--it is just a playoff of two.

[Ming]

No... you are missing the point. Even with the current crappy system, it's the regular season games that get them there... so they remain relevant and are not meaningless.

And yes, your playoff system would be a great improvement. However, playoff system with only conference champions would almost eliminate any chance of a rematch...
We can argue all we want about what's the best system, but it doesn't change the fact that the regular season is still VERY relevant and meaningful, because that's what gets you to the playoff, no matter which system is used.

[Tupac Shakur]

We know the first LSU-Alabama game last year was meaningless because they played it again and gave the national championship to Alabama even though LSU had a better regular season and had split the series.

It's fine if you want to argue that the benefits of a playoff outweigh the downside of having a few regular season games rendered meaningless, but don't pretend that there's no downside at all.

[Guynemer]

No... you are missing the point. Even with the current crappy system, it's the regular season games that get them there... so they remain relevant and are not meaningless.

No. The end result of the LSU-Alabama game was ultimately meaningless, as LSU gained no advantage from winning the game, and Alabama no consequences from losing.

The game may have well never been played for all the importance it had regarding the National Title.

[-Jrabbit]

They didn't know that when it was played.

In fact, people seemed to think it was a pretty important game at the time.

[Tupac Shakur]

Those people were wrong.

[Guynemer]

...and many people (including the media) where already discussing the likelihood of a rematch even before kickoff, let alone after the game ended.

Put it this way; let's say a conference title game features a pair of undefeated teams--Michigan/Wisky, or LSU/Georgia, or Oregon/USC, what have you. The loser of that game would almost certainly end up in the top 4--in fact, they would almost certainly end up exactly at #4, setting up a match with #1, the team that had just beaten them.

So why play the game in the first place?



In fact, that exact scenario nearly happened in 2006, except Michigan only dropped to #3 after losing to #1 Ohio State.

[Ming]

They didn't know that when it was played.

In fact, people seemed to think it was a pretty important game at the time.

Yep... it seemed like a real meaningful game at the time...
And both teams still had to win all the games after that to stay in the hunt.

It's the system that's the problem, not the fact that there is a playoff.

[rah]

That's why I like conference winners only to qualify. It makes those conference games a heck of a lot more important and minimizes rematches.