T1B

RadioFan wrote:

Van wrote:RF, you're missing the point...

No playoffs system can assure that every team gets a match up against every other team.

I missed the point?

You're kidding, right?

Sorry if I offended your numerology interests.

And yes, some teams actually have rematches, in the NFL~ gasp ~ with the other team winning. Shocking, I know.

That's the thing about playoffs. They're crazy like that!



Damn, dude. Snap out of it for at least a few seconds.

RF, wtf?? What part of this is befuddling you??

Van wrote:Maced is saying teams need to play each other directly or else he won't be able to tell who's better. So, even if one team wins the playoffs and wins the title he won't necessarily be convinced that team is better than some other team they didn't play along the way to running through the playoffs.

No playoffs system can assure that every team gets a match up against every other team.

I'm explaining to you that MACED has a stupid requirement that teams MUST play each other before HE'LL know who's better...and that EVEN a playoffs won't insure this happening!

How in the world are you fucking that up?? I'm NOT defending the CF system vs having a playoffs! I'm saying a playoffs STILL won't satisfy MACED's hairbrained "head to head" requirement for knowing who's better because a playoff system still won't insure that EACH AND EVERY TEAM will get to play each other. Some teams will still manage to never cross paths and if they don't play each other then how on earth will MACED ever be able to decide who's better between 'em??

Is THAT clear enough for you?

Van wrote:

RadioFan wrote:

Van wrote:RF, you're missing the point...

No playoffs system can assure that every team gets a match up against every other team.

I missed the point?

You're kidding, right?

Sorry if I offended your numerology interests.

And yes, some teams actually have rematches, in the NFL~ gasp ~ with the other team winning. Shocking, I know.

That's the thing about playoffs. They're crazy like that!



Damn, dude. Snap out of it for at least a few seconds.

RF, wtf?? What part of this is befuddling you??

Van wrote:Maced is saying teams need to play each other directly or else he won't be able to tell who's better. So, even if one team wins the playoffs and wins the title he won't necessarily be convinced that team is better than some other team they didn't play along the way to running through the playoffs.

No playoffs system can assure that every team gets a match up against every other team.

I'm explaining to you that MACED has a stupid requirement that teams MUST play each other before HE'LL know who's better...and that EVEN a playoffs won't insure this happening!

Maybe he can correct me, but that's not what he said. He's talking about the TOP TEAMS.

Tard much?

How in the world are you fucking that up?? I'm NOT defending the CF system vs having a playoffs! I'm saying a playoffs STILL won't satisfy MACED's hairbrained "head to head" requirement for knowing who's better because a playoff system still won't insure that EACH AND EVERY TEAM will get to play each other. Some teams will still manage to never cross paths and if they don't play each other then how on earth will MACED ever be able to decide who's better between 'em??

Is THAT clear enough for you?

Actually, I'm guessing Mace has probably seen how the NFL works and how ALL teams actually don't play each other, yet somehow, some way, the BEST ones end up facing each other in the Super Bowl. GET IT, Yet? Point being, there is this crazy thing called playoffs.

By definition, every team doesn't get into the playoffs, Van. We're talking about the TOP TEAMS -- not "ALL" teams.

HELLO?

I'm NOT defending the CF system

Could've fooled me, given your repeated "it is what is" and "it's the rules" apologetic bullshit when it comes to the BCS -- only, and only because USC has been in it the last three years.

Face it, Van, you'd be on the same side as Mace in this ridiculous argument if USC had lost to Cal or Ore by 3, on the road, and one of those teams was No. 1 and Michigan was undefeated and ranked ahead of the Trojans.

That's OK though, one of these years it WILL happen, based on this pathetic "system." And then we can all crown Cal or Ore champ after one of those teams wins the MNC, and USC wins its Rose Bowl game.

Sorry, RF, but no, he never limited it to only the top teams. He said he can't know for sure which teams are better if they haven't played each other. No qualifiers. Besides, it doesn't matter. Even in a playoffs all the top teams still won't meet each other. So, no matter how you slice it there's no system by which ALL the teams (or even all the top teams) will ever face each other.

NO system would satisfy Maced. He's apparently incapable of deducing which team is better than another without a head to head meeting.

Does this basic impossibility of scheduling mean it's impossible to tell which teams are better than others? Of course not. There are plenty of other methods we use. By season's end we know who's best, with the only problem still occasionally existing being one that Plus One would cure once and for all.

I'm NOT defending the CF system

Could've fooled me, given your repeated "it is what is" and "it's the rules" apologetic bullshit when it comes to the BCS -- only, and only because USC has been in it the last three years.

Okay, it's obvious you're either trollling or you've spent all your time in the NFL forum and next to no time here. You're very obviously confusing me with Jsc or somebody else because that's 100% the diametric opposite of what I've been saying for years in here. So, are you trolling or just completely clueless? There's no other explanation for somebody to say something so patently absurd in light of the fact that there's almost nobody here who's bitched more than I have about the BCS system.

Exactly where in the fuck did you EVER get the idea that I'm a BCS apologist?? I absolutely HATE the BCS and I hate the NCAA and I especially hate this entire stupid rankings/bowl selection system. I've posted to this effect very explicitly at least, oh, a million times.

RF, either get up to speed about what's gone on in here or keep your mouth shut. You couldn't be more off base on this one if you tried.

Van wrote:Exactly where in the fuck did you EVER get the idea that I'm a BCS apologist?? I absolutely HATE the BCS and I hate the NCAA and I especially hate this entire stupid rankings/bowl selection system.

If that's the case, why favor Plus One? The fewer teams in the playoff, the more dependent you are on some sort of ranking system. If not the one currently in place, then another.

Let 16 teams in. That's still a much smaller fraction of teams that qualify for the playoff in college football than is the case in any other major sport.

Van wrote:Sorry, RF, but no, he never limited it to only the top teams. He said he can't know for sure which teams are better if they haven't played each other. No qualifiers.

Anyone with a brain knows it's implied, bro. Damn, you're dense.

Van wrote:Besides, it doesn't matter. Even in a playoffs all the top teams still won't meet each other. So, no matter how you slice it there's no system by which ALL the teams (or even all the top teams) will ever face each other.

Three letters Van: NFL

Good teams may or may not play each other. Great teams win a championship. EOFS.

Van wrote:Does this basic impossibility of scheduling mean it's impossible to tell which teams are better than others? Of course not. There are plenty of other methods we use. By season's end we know who's best, with the only problem still occasionally existing being one that Plus One would cure once and for all.

No, "we" don't, and complete horseshit. By your logic, The Indianapolis Colts should be a dynasty by now.

Van wrote:Okay, it's obvious you're either trollling or you've spent all your time in the NFL forum and next to no time here. You're very obviously confusing me with Jsc or somebody else because that's 100% the diametric opposite of what I've been saying for years in here. So, are you trolling or just completely clueless? There's no other explanation for somebody to say something so patently absurd in light of the fact that there's almost nobody here who's bitched more than I have about the BCS system.

Exactly where in the fuck did you EVER get the idea that I'm a BCS apologist?? I absolutely HATE the BCS and I hate the NCAA and I especially hate this entire stupid rankings/bowl selection system. I've posted to this effect very explicitly at least, oh, a million times.

RF, either get up to speed about what's gone on in here or keep your mouth shut. You couldn't be more off base on this one if you tried.

OK, my bad. If you're that dead-set against the system, why not argue against it now? Fuck, ESPECIALLY now?

You should be embarassed, not arguing the merits -- and thus -- YES, defending your team and the "system," just because your team is about to be in it.

Btw, how do you feel about the "system?" You've gone on and on about this "plus one" bullshit, but that doesn't solve the problem, especially this year.

You've spent how much time -- in this thread alone -- arguing numerology and SOS and Ouija boards and whatever else you're trying to say?

For what?

USC is going to beat UCLA. Then you'll get your shot at tOSU.

Now's the time, Van, if you're against the "system" to say something about it.

If you would've spent one scintilla of time -- this season ALONE -- talking about how bad the system is, outside of numerology and definitive conjecture of "what ifs," I likely would have noticed it, but it's pretty clear that you're full of shit.

But by all means carry on. I'm done here.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

Van wrote:Exactly where in the fuck did you EVER get the idea that I'm a BCS apologist?? I absolutely HATE the BCS and I hate the NCAA and I especially hate this entire stupid rankings/bowl selection system.

If that's the case, why favor Plus One? The fewer teams in the playoff, the more dependent you are on some sort of ranking system. If not the one currently in place, then another.

Let 16 teams in. That's still a much smaller fraction of teams that qualify for the playoff in college football than is the case in any other major sport.

No need for 16 teams. I don't need somebody with two to three losses having a chance against somebody who's gone undefeated or only lost once. A 16 team playoffs is pretty much a pipe dream anyway. One of the main reasons I prefer Plus One is because it's do-able whereas most every other suggestion for change isn't do-able.

Also, no other major sport only plays 12 games. Even the NFL plays 16 games and, more importantly, they a balanced schedule.

I'll take a playoffs, definitely, but not until we first fix the problems caused by unbalanced schedules and too many teams loading up on creampuffs.

Van wrote:A 16 team playoffs is pretty much a pipe dream anyway.

In the short term, perhaps. However, as I posted in another thread, if the NCAA ever does put a playoff in, I believe it'll be a cash cow, and the NCAA will see that. Once that happens, they'll want to expand it to the maximum extent feasible. That's 16 teams.

Also, no other major sport only plays 12 games. Even the NFL plays 16 games and, more importantly, they a balanced schedule.

All the more reason for a larger playoff field, no?

I'll take a playoffs, definitely, but not until we first fix the problems caused by unbalanced schedules and too many teams loading up on creampuffs.

Now who's talking about a pipe dream?

RF, how on earth do you figure I'm defending the system just because I think a USC team that managed to go 12-1, including a win over Ohio St (IF USC beats UCLA and Ohio St!! IF...!!), deserves to be thought of as "better" than a Michigan team which sports both a loss against that same Ohio St team and fewer wins against Top 25 competition?

One has nothing to do with the other. I can hate the system and still see where a team playing under that system earned the right to be called the best.

Terry, re-ordering the entire bowl system and coming up with an all new format to include a 16 team playoffs is a pipe dream.

Having the NCAA mandate balanced schedules and the elimination of 1-A teams playing 1-AA teams is quite simple and easy to implement. Adding Plus One would be as easy as taking our current title game and making it the title game under Plus One.

Those are two simple and very easy to implement changes, but they're two HUGE changes. They're the two simple things we need to give CF a more level playing field and much more competitive balance.

If you would've spent one scintilla of time -- this season ALONE -- talking about how bad the system is, outside of numerology and definitive conjecture of "what ifs," I likely would have noticed it, but it's pretty clear that you're full of shit.

You're positively insane. I've done almost nothing BUT complain about how bad the system is, ever since I've been on this board.

Nobody here would even begin to dispute that. In fact, most people here would greatly prefer that I QUIT COMPLAINING about the system. Many people here are well and truly sick of how much complaining I've done about the system.

Where in the fuck have YOU been these past few years?? Don't you get cable??

Van wrote:Terry, re-ordering the entire bowl system and coming up with an all new format to include a 16 team playoffs is a pipe dream.

The bowls might resist at first, but when it dawns on them that they're now hosting a game with national championship implications, rather than a glorified consolation matchup, I think they'll get onboard in a hurry. Jmho, could be wrong, but that's what I think. The travel really won't be any worse than what the basketball teams currently get in the NCAA tourney.

Having the NCAA mandate balanced schedules and the elimination of 1-A teams playing 1-AA teams is quite simple and easy to implement.

Perhaps I misread you on this one at first. I thought you were looking to mandate balanced strength of schedule among all teams. That, clearly, would be a pipe dream.

I'm all for 6 home and 6 away games with one proviso: I would like teams to be able to schedule a maximum of two neutral-field games per season. You could replace up to one home and/or one away game. If you schedule two, you replace one of each.

Adding Plus One would be as easy as taking our current title game and making it the title game under Plus One.

Given the other changes that took place this year, in that case you'd need to add another bowl game to the BCS mix. Otherwise, you'll have a lot of in-fighting.

In fighting? Who cares? Let 'em squabble. It's not like we don't already have endless squabbling. This remedy is too cut and dried, too sensible, too easy to implement and too downright necessary.

Rose, Sugar, Orange and Fiesta. Between those four bowl games you've got all the traditional conference tie ins covered. Four best teams play in two of those games. None of those games change. The two winners play each other a week later, just like now, except the title game would involve two teams playing one extra game.

Big deal. Same time frame as what we already have. The two teams sure wouldn't mind, not in the least, and they're the only two teams in the nation who'd have to do any adjusting.

That's about as seamless of a transition as we could ever hope to get and if we'd just pair it with the mandated balanced schedules there'd be precious litle left about which to complain. Certainly there'd be no legitimate complaints about who was the true champion and there'd be no more complaints that somebody who was truly deserving of getting a shot got shafted out of their opportunity. If the only teams left complaining are two loss teams and whoever else would make up the rest of the field in a greatly expanded playoffs then who cares? They didn't earn the shot to even be one of the obvious FOUR final teams so fuck 'em. We've never had the debate as to who truly deserves to go to the title game run more than four teams deep. Anybody still left on the outside looking in is right where they belong and right where they would've been in any other year anyway.

Van wrote:In fighting? Who cares? Let 'em squabble.

Uhhh, Van, you do know that the reason for the rule change for the non-BCS schools was to stave off a lawsuit, don't you? Your proposal puts the BCS right back to where it was before, in that regard anyway.

We've never had the debate as to who truly deserves to go to the title game run more than four teams deep.

Two points:

1. I'd disagree. There have been plenty of years in which there was a significant debate about who that fourth team should be.

2. This is a red herring, or at least self-serving. Under the status quo, only two teams get to play for the championship, so there's obviously going to be a limited amount of teams in the picture in that debate. But that doesn't mean that a playoff which put more teams into the field wouldn't be more entertaining.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

Van wrote:In fighting? Who cares? Let 'em squabble.

Uhhh, Van, you do know that the reason for the rule change for the non-BCS schools was to stave off a lawsuit, don't you? Your proposal puts the BCS right back to where it was before, in that regard anyway.

No it doesn't. I'm not excluding anybody. A team simply has to end up being one of the top four teams. Doesn't matter which conference. If a Boise St or a Louisville or a Utah earns enough respect to end up getting there, hey, no problem. They're in. In the meantime they still can go to the other existing BCS bowl games if they aren't one of the top four teams tabbed to play in the two semi final games.

No difference from how it works now.

We've never had the debate as to who truly deserves to go to the title game run more than four teams deep.

Two points:

1. I'd disagree. There have been plenty of years in which there was a significant debate about who that fourth team should be.

So what? Arguing over who's fourth?? We can live with that. Even in a sixteen team playoff there would be arguing over who's sixteenth. Besides, name me a year when somebody ranked fifth or lower had a legitimate claim to the title game. I don't really care about teams ranked fifth or below who want to whine that they were shut out of the title game. They were never going to get into that conversation in any other year either, and deservedly so.

Th object here is to prevent '03, '04 and this year from happening again. Even as acrimonious as these seasons were they still only involved four teams who truly had a shot at playing in the title game. This year would be the most yet, with four, if USC and Florida win today. Otherwise, nope, it's never gone deeper than three teams who were in the argument.

2. This is a red herring, or at least self-serving. Under the status quo, only two teams get to play for the championship, so there's obviously going to be a limited amount of teams in the picture in that debate. But that doesn't mean that a playoff which put more teams into the field wouldn't be more entertaining.

More entertaining? It's not going to happen so how entertaining is that? Plus One and balanced schedules could happen, easily. A real title game featuring the two teams who removed all doubt could happen, and it'd be mighty entertaining. '03 gets fixed. '04 gets fixed. This year gets fixed. All those split title years involving 'Bama and USC, Nebraska and Michigan, Colorado...Washington...Georgia Tech...they all get fixed, on the field. One extra game to settle things once and for all. There would've been NO further arguments in any of those years, if only we had Plus One.

We're not going to get anything more entertaining than that. Just about anything would be better than what we have now but a full fledged playoffs is just too problematic on too many levels for TPTB to ever make it happen. Plus One infringes on nobody's turf. It's the only real solution that's truly do-able.

What part of you're an idiot if you can't admit that USC is better than Michigan if they beat Ohio St can't you understand?

Who's to say that I won't "admit it"?

You, that's who. You're on record as saying you won't admit USC is better than Michigan unless USC ROLLS Ohio St. The odds of THAT happening aren't all that shit hot great so the likely scenario is that even in the case of a USC win you're still going to say Michigan is better.

Maced, you dumbass, you're the one who made it a prerequisite so what's YOUR definition of "ROLL"? How badly would USC have to beat OSU to satisfy you...keeping in mind that you made your mind up about USC and Michigan well before USC even finished their regular season schedule. Didn't need to wait to see the games still to come, nope, not you...you knew.

Hmmm..so Florida or Michigan?


BWAAAAA..USC can officially STFU now

USC doesn't appear to be as good as UCLA let alone Michigan.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:What's hilarious is all the Michigan-backers can do is point to one game.

One...single...game.l.

Yep USC vs UCLA convinced me.

Maced wrote:So, Van, I feel pretty safe in saying that, yes, Michigan is damn sure a better team that USC

Yep. USC spit the bit and now it's all over. This debate though was never about whether Michigan was better now, or two weeks ago. It was a debate about your contention that you weren't even going to admit USC is better than Michigan even if USC managed to go 11-1 and then beat Ohio St in the title game. That remains an absolutely absurd take that you had, saying USC needed to roll Ohio St as opposed to merely beating them.

No matter now. Moot point. Like I kept saying, hey, why don't we just play the games, just to make sure. USC had to go 11-1 and they didn't take care of business so it's all over. Not good enough. Too young, still too mistake prone, twice not quite good enough to overcome flat performances.

Stick a fork in 'em.

Man, the Rose Bowl, as a consolation prize? Oh well, it's all they earned so it's all they get and I sure as hell won't like their mindset heading into that game. Whether it's Michigan or LSU I'm not liking USC's chances now. Gonna take an awful lot of balls to get back up for that one, after such a disappointing defeat.

Michigan or Florida now? Who deserves #2 and a date with Ohio St? Once again we have BCS Nightmare Time, for the third time out of the last four seasons. Great idea, this BCS system...

On the bright side, Vannie, USC's schedule is so strong next year, and Ohio State's OOC is so weak, well, you'll be back and running your tired schedule smack in no time at all.

Gray skies are gonna clear up...

Degenerate wrote:On the bright side, Vannie, USC's schedule is so strong next year, and Ohio State's OOC is so weak, well, you'll be back and running your tired schedule smack in no time at all.

Gray skies are gonna clear up...

True, but I'm thinking more along the lines of Ohio St graduating a lot of key players while USC will be returning virtually their entire team intact since they only started four seniors this year. Dwayne Jarrett is the one big potential early defection to the NFL, and that will suck for us.

Anyway, yeah, you're right. USC's schedule will be a bear next year: At Nebraska, at Notre Dame, at Cal, at Arizona St, at Oregon and at Washington, plus UCLA and Oregon St, with one other game still TBA.

As for my schedule smack being tired, yeah, I suppose it is...if you're on the receiving end of it. Fans of those few teams out there who don't make it an institutional habit to load up on a steady diet of creampuffs? They don't mind hearing at all. They applaud it.

Maced, USC's dead now so you can quit being a cunt already.

You said it. Nobody's "spinning" anything.

"USC will have to roll Ohio St before I'll consider them better than Michigan. If they only beat them by one or two, that won't necessarily do it."

That's what you said and that's what we've been arguing about. We haven't been arguing about how good USC was compared to Michigan before the ND game, or today's game. I was already saying that USC needs to finish up the regular season before we can try to assess USC's merit. They have to take care of their business first, then we'll talk. However, IF they beat Ohio St then that's that. They're better than Michigan, no ifs, ands or buts.

That's what we've been arguing about, Maced. You needed USC to have a convincing win over Ohio St and I was saying no, they don't. They only needed a win, any type of win, period.

Lucky for you though, USC didn't come through and put you on the spot. It would've been high comedy had USC beaten Ohio St , say, 27-25...

"So, Maced, what say you now? USC beat Ohio St and their S.O.S. was way better than Michigan's. Is Michigan still better than USC?"

"Yeah! USC didn't show me enough!"

"Maced, they BEAT Ohio St. That's enough, especially on top of their S.O.S."

"Nah. I needed more. I needed a more convincing win."

~board wide pile on ensues~

Yep, sucks for me and lucky or you, you got out of it. Errr, congrats!

You're an idiot, Maced. From start to finish, you're an idiot.

All along I've been saying this argument is predicated on USC first taking care of business by finishing out 11-1 and then beating Ohio St. If they don't do both these things then of course we have no reason to debate anything because USC would then have that second loss and any debates then go out the window.

You were saying Michigan is better NOW and I was asking you if you were still going to be saying that even if USC ran the table and then beat Ohio St? You said yep, short of USC rolling Ohio St you were still going to say Michigan is better. A mere win wouldn't be enough. That's all we were arguing about. At least that's all I was arguing about because I'd already stated that we needed to see the end of the season unfold before anybody could make such a determination.

As for thinking I'm "a little better than the rest of you", well, yeah, I do think I'm a little better than you. It has nothing to do with my team generally being better than yours. In recent years my team has been better than Terry's and PSU's too and I don't think I'm better than those guys. No, it comes down to you, Maced. It has to do with your proving again and again that you're an idiot. You're probably a great guy in real life but when it comes to your takes here on this board (whether you're debating me or Mgo or Dins or...) I have no problem admitting that I think I'm better than you. No great accomplishment on my part, either. You suck at this. Most people here are better than you at this because...you're an idiot.

Mace, I never made any claim one way or the other about USC. All I kept saying is let's wait until the season ends before we decide who's better. The whole thing would've looked different from USC's end had they ended up rolling through the end of their season and then capped off the season with a win over Ohio St.

Back when USC still had a couple of games to go in their regular season you were already saying Michigan is better and I was saying that point in time isn't when it matters. The end of the season is when it matters and if USC had gone on to beat Ohio St then USC would've obviously been a very different and better team at season's end than they were when you'd already made your final judgement on them.

Whatever, it's all over now. I'm sure we're both sick of this debate.

Oh, fuck. Wait a second here, Maced. This shindig ain't over afterall! Why, looky here, what do we have now? Why, yes, a Michigan-USC head to head match up!

BWAAAHAAAHAAA!!!!

Damn, dude! Doesn't that just reopen a whole new can o' worms?? C'mon! What if USC beats Michigan in the Rose Bowl?? Who's better then?? Two losses apiece, USC had the higher S.O.S. AND they beat Michigan straight up, head to head! Don't you HAVE to say USC is better than Michigan at that point??

Bwaaahahaaa!!!!

I gotta ask. What would your opinion be then, vis a vis Michigan vs USC? Would a head to head loss change things for you?

Hooo man, this is some funny shit.

Anyway, if "bad" USC shows up they may finally get rolled for the first time in over five years. If "good" USC shows up then we'll have a great game and they could very well beat Michigan. Make me bet on it now and I'll take Michigan in a close one, for all the same reasons I would've taken OSU over USC in a close one...only moreso now, after this still too young USC team again showed how easily they can just up and shit the bed.

Hmmm...

If Michigan wins, yeah, they'll likely be #2, although a close loss by Ohio St could still see them falling only one spot to stay ahead of Michigan. If USC wins, man, I don't see them climbing that many spots. Aren't they #7 now? If so, I'm pretty sure LSU at #5 will stay ahead of them with a Sugar Bowl win and I don't see any way the title game winner falls below USC.

Truth be told though, I couldn't give a rat's ass about the final rankings, not beyond #1. Whether a team finishes #2, #4 or #7, what difference does it really make? Can anybody quickly remember off the top of their head who finished #'s 2 through #5 last year?

Hell, I don't even recall whether USC only fell to #2 last year following the loss in the title game. I'd imagine so, since it was such a close game, but I can't recall and don't really care.