Eat it BCS!!!!!!!!!!!Boise State National Champions!!!!

jeebus · Post by **jeebus** » Tue Jan 02, 2007 4:01 am

declaring boise national champs is a bit much dont ya think? yes they're good, yes they won their bowl and all other games this season and in reality id say they deserve a shot...but they're not the only undefeated team. there's a little team in central ohio thats showen some big time talent and im pretty sure they're undefeated too...the name escapes me though....

but seriously Boise should SHOULD have had a shot at osu for the championship...its just that itd never happen. nobody would vote them in because "they'd get slaughtered" it seems the best a team like that...or us will probably do is an at large bid. we're just not taken seriously. very sad, very true. and a long playoff stretch isnt going to happen, and a smaller 6 or so team play off wouldnt even probably include boise. (well, it probably would but it'd be argued)

Schadenfreude · Post by **Schadenfreude** » Tue Jan 02, 2007 7:12 am

I had quite an argument with my brother, a Michigan grad on Christmas Eve. I believed -- and still believe -- that a Boise State-Ohio State bowl game would have proven far more than a game with either Florida or Michigan.

My thinking is that Boise State is the only other undefeated out there, and there are in the top ten. Why argue over a bunch of other one-loss teams when Boise State is so close to the top?

I don't think last night's Fiesta Bowl hurts my argument.

Jacobs4Heisman · Post by **Jacobs4Heisman** » Tue Jan 02, 2007 8:19 am

NWLB wrote:
Jacobs4Heisman wrote:I prefer the marginal subjectivity of an inclusive playoff system to the extreme subjectivity of a system based on some computers and pre-season guesswork.
Naming the best team will remain a subjective thing. A playoff only creates another title. There isn't anything wrong with wanting to see more football. But don't call a playoff what it isn't. There is nothing wrong with wanting more football, as I noted in the other thread. It is simply my point of view that having a playoff does not do enough to warrant changes that would have to come to accommodate it.

Right now we have the subjectivity of guessing which teams are better than others. Putting said teams on a neutral field allows us to see the quality of the teams much more clearly, and I don't think that's very debatable.

For example, yesterday afternoon, not having seen Boise and Oklahoma play, I thought Oklahoma was far better, maybe two touchdowns. After watching the game, there is no doubt in my mind that Boise is the better overall team. I also thought Michigan was better than USC. Wrong. We got to see it on the field, and now we know. I think a playoff that lets us compare more teams 1 to 1, gives us far more information about who's the best, and far less subjectivity than is in place now. I think it's a major change, a change for the better, and well worth any transitional grief for your small segment of anti-playoff folk.

hammb · Post by **hammb** » Tue Jan 02, 2007 8:44 am

We've had this argument every single year for the past 5 on here. The problem is Nathan refuses to accept the premise that a playoff crowns a true champion. He always says, it's just a "playoff champion", and not a measure of who is truly the best.

Technically, I suppose, he's correct. However, it is widely accepted that an end of season playoff system is the best way to crown a season champion. It is used in every major sport other than D1A college football. I have never once heard anyone clamor that the Stanley cup champ was not the "true champ" or that the Super Bowl winner was "only the playoff champ." A playoff is generally accepted as the very best method to crown an undisputed champion for the season. You create your seedings based on a regular season body of work, then settle it through a tournament.

I have come to realize that the argument is pointless on this website because your argument for a playoff hinges on the premise that a playoff is a justifiable way to crown a champion. Nathan doeesn't agree with that premise, for whatever reason. If you go with the thought process that a playoff is still not a real champion then it's easy to see his opinion of "why bother with a playoff."

Personally, I think it's ludicrous, but I've gotten to the point where everything to type in this argument has been typed. You're not going to sway his opinion, so we're best off not even trying.

Falconfreak90 · Post by **Falconfreak90** » Tue Jan 02, 2007 9:17 am

What a wild game!!! CONGRATS BOISE STATE!!! They have one hell of a team.

Could BSU beat OSU? I certainly thinks its possible. I think Florida will beat OSU.

GO FALCONS

Warthog · Post by **Warthog** » Tue Jan 02, 2007 9:36 am

hammb wrote:We've had this argument every single year for the past 5 on here. The problem is Nathan refuses to accept the premise that a playoff crowns a true champion. He always says, it's just a "playoff champion", and not a measure of who is truly the best.

Technically, I suppose, he's correct. However, it is widely accepted that an end of season playoff system is the best way to crown a season champion. It is used in every major sport other than D1A college football. I have never once heard anyone clamor that the Stanley cup champ was not the "true champ" or that the Super Bowl winner was "only the playoff champ." A playoff is generally accepted as the very best method to crown an undisputed champion for the season. You create your seedings based on a regular season body of work, then settle it through a tournament.

I have come to realize that the argument is pointless on this website because your argument for a playoff hinges on the premise that a playoff is a justifiable way to crown a champion. Nathan doeesn't agree with that premise, for whatever reason. If you go with the thought process that a playoff is still not a real champion then it's easy to see his opinion of "why bother with a playoff."

Personally, I think it's ludicrous, but I've gotten to the point where everything to type in this argument has been typed. You're not going to sway his opinion, so we're best off not even trying.

Yep, what he said.

FWIW, I think the Chargers should play the Lions in the Montreal Bowl to determine the champion of the NFL.

Flipper · Post by **Flipper** » Tue Jan 02, 2007 9:48 am

We don't have a playoff because no one has put together a financial package that makes the thing work.

You guys are looking at this from the wrong side of things. You want to find a way to determine a Champion. They want to make $$$. The BCS gives them the $$$ and a close enough version of a champion to make it work.
When someone can find the right amount of money...we'll have a playoff.

Regarding the larger question of what a playoff decides....in this country we decide our champs with playoffs. It's always been that way it always will be that way. When we were kids and said "next touchdown wins" we were deciding things with a playoff. NWLB thinks otherwise because he is a commie. He can kiss my red, white and blue ass!!!

Now...is there anyone here with a medical background who can explain to me why my ass might be red white and blue? I ate some kind of questionable looking mussels on New Year's eve...could that be it?

jeebus · Post by **jeebus** » Tue Jan 02, 2007 9:50 am

well hold on now...st louis in baseball, steelers in football last year i dont think everyone would say there's no doubt they are the best teams in the game...there's always flukes. sorry if somebody is a fan of either team but c'mon...

BGSUFootballFan · Post by **BGSUFootballFan** » Tue Jan 02, 2007 9:55 am

Heck yeah Boise State, I love you more than life itself! I put money on Boise to win this game outright and I hope after that game last night everyone can see why. They all play so hard and as a team, while every player on Oklahoma is pondering how they should break it to the media and their teammates that they're headed to the NFL early! I love it, I just absolutely love everything that happend in that game and I would rank it #2 all time in my favorite games, ahead of USC-ND last year, but still behind BG-PU!

Jacobs4Heisman · Post by **Jacobs4Heisman** » Tue Jan 02, 2007 10:01 am

jeebus wrote:well hold on now...st louis in baseball, steelers in football last year i dont think everyone would say there's no doubt they are the best teams in the game...there's always flukes. sorry if somebody is a fan of either team but c'mon...

Pittsburgh proved they were the best team last year by smoking a bunch of playoff teams on the road. The only reason they were seeded low is because they had a bunch of key injuries during a losing streak mid-season. In college, that misfortune would have relegated them to the maxi-tampon-car-care-Wood-county-credit-union bowl.

St Louis is an even weaker example because a series almost always produces the best team, and they went through 3 of 'em. If another playoff team was better, they would have won.

hammb · Post by **hammb** » Tue Jan 02, 2007 10:01 am

Flipper wrote: You guys are looking at this from the wrong side of things. You want to find a way to determine a Champion. They want to make $$$. The BCS gives them the $$$ and a close enough version of a champion to make it work.
When someone can find the right amount of money...we'll have a playoff.

Agreed, and this is why it will never happen in the forseeable future. The only way you'll see a playoff, IMO, is if it is backed by the NCAA in the same manner as all other sports. The only way the NCAA could justify it would be to run it the same way as all other sports. That means including all conference champions, and because of that, splitting the revenue with all the conferences.

You would still have the minor bowls, so those are out of the equation, and I think the revenue from a playoff would meet or exceed that which is generated from the major bowl games. The problem is that the revenue would be dished out to each conference, and would likely result in the big boys not getting quite as much cash as they do in the current system.

Considering that the NCAA is composed of university presidents, most of whom are from institutions that are benefitting from the current scheme, I don't think a true playoff is in the forseeable future. I think it would be better for college football as a whole, but it might result in less money for the schools that are currently reaping the benefits of this system.

Jacobs4Heisman · Post by **Jacobs4Heisman** » Tue Jan 02, 2007 10:06 am

Flipper wrote:We don't have a playoff because no one has put together a financial package that makes the thing work.

You guys are looking at this from the wrong side of things. You want to find a way to determine a Champion. They want to make $$$. The BCS gives them the $$$ and a close enough version of a champion to make it work.
When someone can find the right amount of money...we'll have a playoff.

Regarding the larger question of what a playoff decides....in this country we decide our champs with playoffs. It's always been that way it always will be that way. When we were kids and said "next touchdown wins" we were deciding things with a playoff. NWLB thinks otherwise because he is a commie. He can kiss my red, white and blue ass!!!

Now...is there anyone here with a medical background who can explain to me why my ass might be red white and blue? I ate some kind of questionable looking mussels on New Year's eve...could that be it?

A 16-team playoff would produce vast amounts of money. Even after splitting it with the little guys, the big boys would still have more than they do now. It isn't that the BCS guys want more money, they want to keep teams like us from getting more money as well. A playoff would cut us in on the cash, and allow us to eventually pull ourselves up to challenge them. That's what they're afraid of.

I have no doubt that a playoff will eventually be forced upon those in power.

Flipper · Post by **Flipper** » Tue Jan 02, 2007 10:17 am

Nike tried...I thought I remembered this from a book about Phil Knight and Nike's corporate rise (a great read BTW)

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... A965958260

IIRC, the NCAA Presidents were against it at the time because it was too NFLish for their tastes...one even called Knight "the devil".

So...mebbe it's the $$$$ and the NCAA Presidents needing their philosphical cockles warmed.

Jacobs4Heisman · Post by **Jacobs4Heisman** » Tue Jan 02, 2007 10:30 am

Flipper wrote:Nike tried...I thought I remembered this from a book about Phil Knight and Nike's corporate rise (a great read BTW)

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... A965958260

IIRC, the NCAA Presidents were against it at the time because it was too NFLish for their tastes...one even called Knight "the devil".

So...mebbe it's the $$$$ and the NCAA Presidents needing their philosphical cockles warmed.

All those guys have to retire or die eventually right?

Maybe Congress can waste some more time and money on sports and make it happen.

NWLB · Post by **NWLB** » Tue Jan 02, 2007 10:31 am

hammb wrote:We've had this argument every single year for the past 5 on here. The problem is Nathan refuses to accept the premise that a playoff crowns a true champion. He always says, it's just a "playoff champion", and not a measure of who is truly the best.

Technically, I suppose, he's correct. However, it is widely accepted that an end of season playoff system is the best way to crown a season champion. It is used in every major sport other than D1A college football. I have never once heard anyone clamor that the Stanley cup champ was not the "true champ" or that the Super Bowl winner was "only the playoff champ." A playoff is generally accepted as the very best method to crown an undisputed champion for the season. You create your seedings based on a regular season body of work, then settle it through a tournament.

I have come to realize that the argument is pointless on this website because your argument for a playoff hinges on the premise that a playoff is a justifiable way to crown a champion. Nathan doeesn't agree with that premise, for whatever reason. If you go with the thought process that a playoff is still not a real champion then it's easy to see his opinion of "why bother with a playoff."

Personally, I think it's ludicrous, but I've gotten to the point where everything to type in this argument has been typed. You're not going to sway his opinion, so we're best off not even trying.

Represent brother.

I'm cutting and pasting this post every single year this comes up again. What I'll add isn't about if the playoff should or shouldn't happen. More my remembrances of how this entire issue creeped into reality.

We start to get into the fuzzy world of what happened, what was in the press release, and what the reality was behind the scenes. The TV networks didn't have nearly, or any conference title games, the BCS, nor the more recent flood of bowl games 15 years ago. The expansion of cable sports networks and such was starting into full swing at the time. TV being about marketing and hype, the network talking heads started to talk about how great a playoff would be, how there would be more post-season games to watch, money from those games.

To cap the argument, you could get rich if you had a dime for each time somebody from ESPN, CNN/SI, USA Today, or Sports Illustrated dropped a line to the effect of "the only way to get the best team was on the field." There were other motivations behind the BCS of course. However the BCS was vilified from the start, because the networks saw it as an end-run past their desire for a playoff. Indeed, it seemed that as the BCS came closer to being, the rhetoric from the networks got worse. You had people scrambling to find ways to offer money to the NCAA to start a playoff, entire proposed cable networks were suggested to support the effort. We might recall the European company that literally offered hundreds of millions to create a full scale playoff.

The efforts failed of course. Yes, it is true the major conference wanted to stifle lower rung bowl games and conferences, this was also at play at the time. But in the end, more bowl games developed, TV deals, which weren't a given for bowl games 15 years ago, ceased being a worry. The networks wanted the games, the needed the content. So just having a bowl game assured somebody would show it. The "need" that existed in the minds of the network execs faded. Were it still prime in their list of wants and needs, we'd hear more about it than we do.

Above all else, I marvel at the way the playoff arguments have evolved over the years. Each year, it is some new spin on the same failed attempts to stir the pot. Were the demand for a playoff as strong as it is said to be, I think we'd be far closer to one than we are or ever will be.

I think most of the playoff advocates were duped, and jumped onto a bandwagon whose main sponsors bailed out a long time ago. 15 years ago, people bought into a load of wishful hype from the networks. Aggrieved fans of teams that felt slighted willingly bought into all of it. The main bandwagon leaders are media personalities ill equipped to debate almost anything. These guys don't think deeper than a kiddie pool, and are just playing two crowds that remain around, after this issue was beaten to death and killed off years ago. So every year, we go around the block again. Now the entire debate isn't much more than like baseball fans debating the DH.