New Scaratings :: View topic

scar wrote:

Well, we can differ on eight or sixteen, but it doesn't matter because we will get 4.

At 120 teams, eight would be the top 6 and 2/3rds percent. One could opine that using a human selection committe and letting them select the top less than 7% might omit a deserving team that could win the championship.

At sixteen you are over 13%, and i think that argument is almost negligble.

But up there in Ohio Dave, you will get to see Ohio State in the Final Four in the next few years. But you probably won't ever get to see Cincy get a shot.

Good... I hate UC!

I guess my point is that I don't want to see football watered down like basketball is. VCU and George Mason are "cute" stories and fun to watch, but does anyone really think they are the best team? Screw the little guy... long live the king!

btw... 4 probably isn't enough and maybe 8 or even 16 could work, but more than that is terrible.

Author:	scar [ Thu Jun 21, 2012 2:31 pm ]
Post subject:	New BCS Playoff
Anybody else think it is lame that we are finally going to have a college playoff and it is only 4 teams ? When my interest was being formed in the 60s and early 70s, teams played 10 game schedules. That grew over time to 11, then 12, then 13 if you were in a sanctioned "kick off game", then some years with 13 depending on the vagaries of the calendar. Then somebody realized they could make money with a conference championship game, which NCAA rules limit to conference with 12 or more members (and started the on and off, ongoing conference realigment issues that we will leave for another post), so another game was added for a few teams. The lower level conferences have 16 team playoffs and somehow all the students don't flunk out. I would think that an eight or sixteen team tournament would generate more than enough funds in total to offset a cutback in the regular schedule. Plus it would be more inclusive, and teams on a late year hot run or a team that can't get anybody to schedule them would have a shot. I figure a 4 team playoff over 10 years might involve 12 teams. Be the same top of the pecking order year after year. I feel the powers that be are trying to hoard the top spots (anti-trust anyone ?) and are only doing this because of their fear of an annual SEC vs SEC game.

Author:	Tolle [ Thu Jun 21, 2012 2:41 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: New BCS Playoff
I'm sure my opinion will differ from most, but I think the basketball tourny is a joke. If your goal is to try to figure out who the best team is then 4 teams (or 8 teams at most) should be enough to determine that. With 68 teams in basketball the regular season doesn't mean shit and you can lose a dozen games and be the "national champion"... in my opinion you aren't the best team in the country if you get your ass kicked several times. If you broaden it to 16 or more teams then you will get 3 and 4 loss teams in and they have no business playing for the championship. Everyone seems to hate the BCS, but isn't it an improvement over what was before it? The BCS can certainly use some improvement, however I'll take it over having BYU beating a shitty Michigan team in the Holiday Bowl and winning the Sears Trophy.

Author:	scar [ Thu Jun 21, 2012 2:50 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: New BCS Playoff
Well, we can differ on eight or sixteen, but it doesn't matter because we will get 4. At 120 teams, eight would be the top 6 and 2/3rds percent. One could opine that using a human selection committe and letting them select the top less than 7% might omit a deserving team that could win the championship. At sixteen you are over 13%, and i think that argument is almost negligble. But up there in Ohio Dave, you will get to see Ohio State in the Final Four in the next few years. But you probably won't ever get to see Cincy get a shot.

Author:	Tolle [ Thu Jun 21, 2012 3:52 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: New BCS Playoff
scar wrote: Well, we can differ on eight or sixteen, but it doesn't matter because we will get 4. At 120 teams, eight would be the top 6 and 2/3rds percent. One could opine that using a human selection committe and letting them select the top less than 7% might omit a deserving team that could win the championship. At sixteen you are over 13%, and i think that argument is almost negligble. But up there in Ohio Dave, you will get to see Ohio State in the Final Four in the next few years. But you probably won't ever get to see Cincy get a shot. Good... I hate UC! I guess my point is that I don't want to see football watered down like basketball is. VCU and George Mason are "cute" stories and fun to watch, but does anyone really think they are the best team? Screw the little guy... long live the king! btw... 4 probably isn't enough and maybe 8 or even 16 could work, but more than that is terrible.

Author:	scar [ Thu Jun 21, 2012 5:36 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: New BCS Playoff
Tolle wrote: scar wrote: Well, we can differ on eight or sixteen, but it doesn't matter because we will get 4. At 120 teams, eight would be the top 6 and 2/3rds percent. One could opine that using a human selection committe and letting them select the top less than 7% might omit a deserving team that could win the championship. At sixteen you are over 13%, and i think that argument is almost negligble. But up there in Ohio Dave, you will get to see Ohio State in the Final Four in the next few years. But you probably won't ever get to see Cincy get a shot. Good... I hate UC! I guess my point is that I don't want to see football watered down like basketball is. VCU and George Mason are "cute" stories and fun to watch, but does anyone really think they are the best team? Screw the little guy... long live the king! btw... 4 probably isn't enough and maybe 8 or even 16 could work, but more than that is terrible. I was / am hoping for 8 someday.

New Scaratings http://www.scaratings.com/newScaratings/

New BCS Playoff http://www.scaratings.com/newScaratings/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=1830	Page 1 of 1

Page 1 of 1	All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/