Hot Playoff Talk (not trolling)
Give me back the old bowl system. I don't care if there's 30 bowls or not. Just let me watch my DAWGS play in the Rose Bowl against the Big 10(?) champs.
Then we can debate all offseason who the REAL champ is if we end up being undefeated, and teams can go back to having real OOC schedules as they won't be worried about fucking up their playoff chances with a single loss.
FMFYFE
The quest for an undisputed champ is ruining college football. Get the fuck off my lawn!
Comments
-
They want a 4 team playoff so they can put black Sark over a coach like Petersen and drum up a bunch of noise among doogs and every other fucktard. Then there's the pageantry of meaningless bowls and loser fans whose teams will never actually make a playoff. Think WSU.
It's going to be a long time, if ever, when there is a playoff system that isn't completely fucktarded. -
Tend to agree with Sych Fag J. Maybe I just hate change, but I liked it before the BCS to be honest. Play a ball buster schedule and win everything you can, then let the chips fall. Debate like crazy in the off season and wish for 20 years you could have played Miami. A simpler time. Before Hep C.
-
No then you get shit like 1991, where UW and Miami shared a national title.PurpleJ said:Fuck the playoff unless you are gonna do a 16 team playoff with automatic bids for major conference champs. That's fucking dumb, though.
Give me back the old bowl system. I don't care if there's 30 bowls or not. Just let me watch my DAWGS play in the Rose Bowl against the Big 10(?) champs.
Then we can debate all offseason who the REAL champ is if we end up being undefeated, and teams can go back to having real OOC schedules as they won't be worried about fucking up their playoff chances with a single loss.
FMFYFE
The quest for an undisputed champ is ruining college football. Get the fuck off my lawn!
Sharing is loser talk -
Go watch the MLS playoffs faggot.BrickSquad said:
No then you get shit like 1991, where UW and Miami shared a national title.PurpleJ said:Fuck the playoff unless you are gonna do a 16 team playoff with automatic bids for major conference champs. That's fucking dumb, though.
Give me back the old bowl system. I don't care if there's 30 bowls or not. Just let me watch my DAWGS play in the Rose Bowl against the Big 10(?) champs.
Then we can debate all offseason who the REAL champ is if we end up being undefeated, and teams can go back to having real OOC schedules as they won't be worried about fucking up their playoff chances with a single loss.
FMFYFE
The quest for an undisputed champ is ruining college football. Get the fuck off my lawn!
Sharing is loser talk
-
So you wouldn't have loved to see UW face Miami in 1991?PurpleJ said:
Go watch the MLS playoffs faggot.BrickSquad said:
No then you get shit like 1991, where UW and Miami shared a national title.PurpleJ said:Fuck the playoff unless you are gonna do a 16 team playoff with automatic bids for major conference champs. That's fucking dumb, though.
Give me back the old bowl system. I don't care if there's 30 bowls or not. Just let me watch my DAWGS play in the Rose Bowl against the Big 10(?) champs.
Then we can debate all offseason who the REAL champ is if we end up being undefeated, and teams can go back to having real OOC schedules as they won't be worried about fucking up their playoff chances with a single loss.
FMFYFE
The quest for an undisputed champ is ruining college football. Get the fuck off my lawn!
Sharing is loser talk -
No I'd rather argue about it for years after the fact and whoop their asses 3 years later and end their home streak. Then upset them in 2000 and win the Rose Bowl and pop off before they embarrass us the next year.BrickSquad said:
So you wouldn't have loved to see UW face Miami in 1991?PurpleJ said:
Go watch the MLS playoffs faggot.BrickSquad said:
No then you get shit like 1991, where UW and Miami shared a national title.PurpleJ said:Fuck the playoff unless you are gonna do a 16 team playoff with automatic bids for major conference champs. That's fucking dumb, though.
Give me back the old bowl system. I don't care if there's 30 bowls or not. Just let me watch my DAWGS play in the Rose Bowl against the Big 10(?) champs.
Then we can debate all offseason who the REAL champ is if we end up being undefeated, and teams can go back to having real OOC schedules as they won't be worried about fucking up their playoff chances with a single loss.
FMFYFE
The quest for an undisputed champ is ruining college football. Get the fuck off my lawn!
Sharing is loser talk
-
Right now we have a poll system like we used to. It's not a 'playoff'. A playoff you have division winners and they feed into a tournament.
Right now, we just have a 'panel of experts' pick 4 teams. Which is essentially, the old poll system with one additional game.
A much better system would be either just go back to the old bowl system and have the committee pick 2 teams to play in a natty (which is basically what we have now, except for it would keep traditional tie-ins, which are the shit).
Or, we can go to 4, 16 team conferences and take those winners and have an actual playoff.
Because the second scenario is unlikely for logistical reasons, the only thing that makes sense is that we do the first one.
But we won't do that, because we are fucking stupid. It will end up expanding and weakening the whole fucking point of college football which is the regionality and that winning your conference means something irrespective of the national picture.
A six or eight team playoff is just exacerbating the stupidity of the current system. Every time you have teams that are 'picked' you are going to want 1 or 2 more teams. That's why we have SIXTY FIVE in the BBall tourney. Because SIXTY FOUR wasn't enough. HAD TO HAVE ONE MORE!
Fucking stupid bullshit. -
Agree.
-
It's amazing to me that a crippled oxy addict is 100x more intelligent than any national media pundit or pollster is.
-
It's now up to 68.Dennis_DeYoung said:Right now we have a poll system like we used to. It's not a 'playoff'. A playoff you have division winners and they feed into a tournament.
Right now, we just have a 'panel of experts' pick 4 teams. Which is essentially, the old poll system with one additional game.
A much better system would be either just go back to the old bowl system and have the committee pick 2 teams to play in a natty (which is basically what we have now, except for it would keep traditional tie-ins, which are the shit).
Or, we can go to 4, 16 team conferences and take those winners and have an actual playoff.
Because the second scenario is unlikely for logistical reasons, the only thing that makes sense is that we do the first one.
But we won't do that, because we are fucking stupid. It will end up expanding and weakening the whole fucking point of college football which is the regionality and that winning your conference means something irrespective of the national picture.
A six or eight team playoff is just exacerbating the stupidity of the current system. Every time you have teams that are 'picked' you are going to want 1 or 2 more teams. That's why we have SIXTY FIVE in the BBall tourney. Because SIXTY FOUR wasn't enough. HAD TO HAVE ONE MORE!
Fucking stupid bullshit. -
I can't, for the life of me figure out why we try to pick 4 teams before the bowls instead of 2 teams after the bowls. It's so fucking stupid.
Bowl tie ins that would make sense:
Rose: Pac-12 vs. Big 10 (UW vs. Michigan)
Sugar: SEC vs. ACC (Bama vs. Clemson)
Orange: Big 12 vs. At Large 1 (Okie vs. Ohio State)
Fiesta: At Large 2 vs. At Large 3 (Louisville vs. Western Mich - fuck it)
Then you have an undefeated UW vs. an undefeated Clemson in the COMCAST BROUGHT TO YOU BY BUDLIGHT, POWERED BY AT&T NATTY BOWL, PRESENTED BY MONSANTO.
-
That's pretty much the system we have now, dumbass.Dennis_DeYoung said:I can't, for the life of me figure out why we try to pick 4 teams before the bowls instead of 2 teams after the bowls. It's so fucking stupid.
Bowl tie ins that would make sense:
Rose: Pac-12 vs. Big 10 (UW vs. Michigan)
Sugar: SEC vs. ACC (Bama vs. Clemson)
Orange: Big 12 vs. At Large 1 (Okie vs. Ohio State)
Fiesta: At Large 2 vs. At Large 3 (Louisville vs. Western Mich - fuck it)
Then you have an undefeated UW vs. an undefeated Clemson in the COMCAST BROUGHT TO YOU BY BUDLIGHT, POWERED BY AT&T NATTY BOWL, PRESENTED BY MONSANTO. -
Except for the fact that we have the over-complication of not knowing where the fuck conference champions are going to play and fucking up the traditional bowl tie ins, dumbass.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
That's pretty much the system we have now, dumbass.Dennis_DeYoung said:I can't, for the life of me figure out why we try to pick 4 teams before the bowls instead of 2 teams after the bowls. It's so fucking stupid.
Bowl tie ins that would make sense:
Rose: Pac-12 vs. Big 10 (UW vs. Michigan)
Sugar: SEC vs. ACC (Bama vs. Clemson)
Orange: Big 12 vs. At Large 1 (Okie vs. Ohio State)
Fiesta: At Large 2 vs. At Large 3 (Louisville vs. Western Mich - fuck it)
Then you have an undefeated UW vs. an undefeated Clemson in the COMCAST BROUGHT TO YOU BY BUDLIGHT, POWERED BY AT&T NATTY BOWL, PRESENTED BY MONSANTO. -
It's very simple to figure out the new system.Dennis_DeYoung said:
Except for the fact that we have the over-complication of not knowing where the fuck conference champions are going to play and fucking up the traditional bowl tie ins, dumbass.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
That's pretty much the system we have now, dumbass.Dennis_DeYoung said:I can't, for the life of me figure out why we try to pick 4 teams before the bowls instead of 2 teams after the bowls. It's so fucking stupid.
Bowl tie ins that would make sense:
Rose: Pac-12 vs. Big 10 (UW vs. Michigan)
Sugar: SEC vs. ACC (Bama vs. Clemson)
Orange: Big 12 vs. At Large 1 (Okie vs. Ohio State)
Fiesta: At Large 2 vs. At Large 3 (Louisville vs. Western Mich - fuck it)
Then you have an undefeated UW vs. an undefeated Clemson in the COMCAST BROUGHT TO YOU BY BUDLIGHT, POWERED BY AT&T NATTY BOWL, PRESENTED BY MONSANTO. -
I tend to agree with that. Also it seems like people can't even enjoy winning their conference anymore. That should be the real goal of every team every season. Let the rest play itself out.PurpleJ said:The quest for an undisputed champ is ruining college football. Get the fuck off my lawn!
-
The whole thing is fucking retarded. You are never going to get a true national champ in CFB. It's ruining fucking everything like my future husband @PurpleJ said.
-
Alabama was a true champion last year.Dennis_DeYoung said:The whole thing is fucking retarded. You are never going to get a true national champ in CFB. It's ruining fucking everything like my future husband @PurpleJ said.
Fuck off. -
They won the Sugar Bowl.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Alabama was a true champion last year.Dennis_DeYoung said:The whole thing is fucking retarded. You are never going to get a true national champ in CFB. It's ruining fucking everything like my future husband @PurpleJ said.
Fuck off.
-
A motion from the floor:
Whenever a thread contains the word "hot", a Keely/Antje-like pic is required or the thread author is banned.
-
FUCKING WRONG.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Alabama was a true champion last year.Dennis_DeYoung said:The whole thing is fucking retarded. You are never going to get a true national champ in CFB. It's ruining fucking everything like my future husband @PurpleJ said.
Fuck off.
You are really bad at understanding shit.
Clemson and Bama tied last year and split the natty. If you want the fucking NFL, watch the NFL. -
No. Bama beat them in the Sugar Bowl.Dennis_DeYoung said:
FUCKING WRONG.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Alabama was a true champion last year.Dennis_DeYoung said:The whole thing is fucking retarded. You are never going to get a true national champ in CFB. It's ruining fucking everything like my future husband @PurpleJ said.
Fuck off.
You are really bad at understanding shit.
Clemson and Bama tied last year and split the natty. If you want the fucking NFL, watch the NFL.
The other shit that may or may have not happened in other major bowls may have resulted in a split championship, but that's why we have two polls. Which are irrelevant because Bama would have won on the field hypothetically, but it didn't actually happen so we get to argue about it. To. This. Day.
I miss REAL college football dammit.
-
Alabama 45, Clemson 40.Dennis_DeYoung said:
FUCKING WRONG.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Alabama was a true champion last year.Dennis_DeYoung said:The whole thing is fucking retarded. You are never going to get a true national champ in CFB. It's ruining fucking everything like my future husband @PurpleJ said.
Fuck off.
You are really bad at understanding shit.
Clemson and Bama tied last year and split the natty. If you want the fucking NFL, watch the NFL. -
I would have loved to see UW play Miami in 1991.
-
You don't get it.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Alabama 45, Clemson 40.Dennis_DeYoung said:
FUCKING WRONG.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Alabama was a true champion last year.Dennis_DeYoung said:The whole thing is fucking retarded. You are never going to get a true national champ in CFB. It's ruining fucking everything like my future husband @PurpleJ said.
Fuck off.
You are really bad at understanding shit.
Clemson and Bama tied last year and split the natty. If you want the fucking NFL, watch the NFL. -
Yes I do. The best team won on the field and earned the natty.Dennis_DeYoung said:
You don't get it.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Alabama 45, Clemson 40.Dennis_DeYoung said:
FUCKING WRONG.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Alabama was a true champion last year.Dennis_DeYoung said:The whole thing is fucking retarded. You are never going to get a true national champ in CFB. It's ruining fucking everything like my future husband @PurpleJ said.
Fuck off.
You are really bad at understanding shit.
Clemson and Bama tied last year and split the natty. If you want the fucking NFL, watch the NFL.
You sound like you prefer orange slices and participation trophies. -
Tie breaker goes to the head-to-head matchDennis_DeYoung said:
FUCKING WRONG.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Alabama was a true champion last year.Dennis_DeYoung said:The whole thing is fucking retarded. You are never going to get a true national champ in CFB. It's ruining fucking everything like my future husband @PurpleJ said.
Fuck off.
You are really bad at understanding shit.
Clemson and Bama tied last year and split the natty. If you want the fucking NFL, watch the NFL. -
They should've never played. But I agree that tie goes to the head to head winner.BrickSquad said:
Tie breaker goes to the head-to-head matchDennis_DeYoung said:
FUCKING WRONG.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Alabama was a true champion last year.Dennis_DeYoung said:The whole thing is fucking retarded. You are never going to get a true national champ in CFB. It's ruining fucking everything like my future husband @PurpleJ said.
Fuck off.
You are really bad at understanding shit.
Clemson and Bama tied last year and split the natty. If you want the fucking NFL, watch the NFL. -
Nope. You don't.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Yes I do. The best team won on the field and earned the natty.Dennis_DeYoung said:
You don't get it.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Alabama 45, Clemson 40.Dennis_DeYoung said:
FUCKING WRONG.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Alabama was a true champion last year.Dennis_DeYoung said:The whole thing is fucking retarded. You are never going to get a true national champ in CFB. It's ruining fucking everything like my future husband @PurpleJ said.
Fuck off.
You are really bad at understanding shit.
Clemson and Bama tied last year and split the natty. If you want the fucking NFL, watch the NFL.
You sound like you prefer orange slices and participation trophies. -
Why do you hate the Bowl Alliance?Dennis_DeYoung said:
They should've never played. But I agree that tie goes to the head to head winner.BrickSquad said:
Tie breaker goes to the head-to-head matchDennis_DeYoung said:
FUCKING WRONG.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Alabama was a true champion last year.Dennis_DeYoung said:The whole thing is fucking retarded. You are never going to get a true national champ in CFB. It's ruining fucking everything like my future husband @PurpleJ said.
Fuck off.
You are really bad at understanding shit.
Clemson and Bama tied last year and split the natty. If you want the fucking NFL, watch the NFL.
Every system over the last 20+ years would have resulted in a natty match-up between Alabama and Clemson.
You must be older than @RaceBannon. -
The bowl alliance is garbage and it always was. The bowls and polls model is as good as what we have now and it was better for fans and CFB.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Why do you hate the Bowl Alliance?Dennis_DeYoung said:
They should've never played. But I agree that tie goes to the head to head winner.BrickSquad said:
Tie breaker goes to the head-to-head matchDennis_DeYoung said:
FUCKING WRONG.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Alabama was a true champion last year.Dennis_DeYoung said:The whole thing is fucking retarded. You are never going to get a true national champ in CFB. It's ruining fucking everything like my future husband @PurpleJ said.
Fuck off.
You are really bad at understanding shit.
Clemson and Bama tied last year and split the natty. If you want the fucking NFL, watch the NFL.
Every system over the last 20+ years would have resulted in a natty match-up between Alabama and Clemson.
You must be older than @RaceBannon.
Now we have some bullshit thing where we think we have a champ, but really don't. It's basically as good as the fucking GRAMMYs.
The only decent system in sport was the old baseball system (the new one isn't really that bad): Two 8 team divisions, 150 games in division. Winners play 7 games to determine. You can be pretty sure from that.
That determines who is BEST. The college football system is about WINNING GAMES. If you are dumb and don't get the difference between those two things, and unfortunately you are displaying your ignorance of the difference, then I can't help you.
