Ohio State vs. Who?

[edgarfigaro]

Actually, the colleges care somewhat...they do have to keep up appearances. Hence why all the bowls start AFTER the finals. I remember a couple years ago TCU turned down a bowl bid because it was in the middle of their finals. It's a very legitimate point, because you would have to schedule the playoff games over three weeks...and the regular season ends the first week in december. So do you use the next three weeks and screw up finals? Or do you start in january and step on the NFL's toes?

And who the fuck wants a two loss championship team? That's what you'll get with a playoff.

Finally, did you even read the main part of the article, you know, the whole point about how the BCS is lightyears better than the crap they had before. Michigan would be in whats now the Gator Bowl, Texas and Auburn, not Boise State and Rutgers would be a major bowl, and Ohio State would get USC in the Rose bowl.

So yeah, I think it was an excellent article, and to call it the 2nd worst article on ESPN when Joe Theisman regular shits on a keyboard and calls it a column is just moronic.

[Tyche]

Just because it's "lightyears better" doesn't mean it is actually good. And who cares if a two-loss team wins it all, that means they beat an undefeated or a 1loss team to do it. Sounds totally legitmate to me.

[archibaldcrane]

See, I just made a very legitimate argument about why those 2 schools would bitch. And considering the fan bases of those two schools, you know they would bitch and bitch and bitch.

LOL

Noone, and I mean noone, thinks that Oklahoma or Auburn should "get a shot at the national championship" in a single game as it's currently played.

Noone.

The 8-team playoff prevents even a team like undefeated Boise State (the only other team besides Michigan, Florida, and Ohio State that has a legitimate beef with the 'system' of a national champion as it currently works) from being shut out.

Look, there might be a year where there's more than 8 1-loss major conference teams, and that might cause a slight problem. However, you know what you dump it on? SCHEDULE HARDER OPPONENTS, which is the same shit people always say when their 1-loss team is overlooked. There's alot less at stake for the #9 team than the #3 team, and that's something that can't be argued.

This would be more exciting, more interesting, more fair. How can you argue against it? Saying it won't be perfect is stupid, unless you're willing to propose something even better.

[Kurp]

Just because it's "lightyears better" doesn't mean it is actually good. And who cares if a two-loss team wins it all, that means they beat an undefeated or a 1loss team to do it. Sounds totally legitmate to me.

I really don't understand the 'two loss teams shouldn't get a shot' argument if they're in a playoff. In the current setup that's true, but in a playoff they'd have to run through two or three 0-2 loss teams. Why the hell shouldn't they be able to claim a national title if they could pull that off? That undefeated or one loss team suddenly has one or two losses and was defeated by the 'scrub' 2 loss team. Who would you consider the better team in the end?

But, then again, I think it was Edgarfigaro that said the MLB playoffs are 'all about luck.' So, I can understand his staunch opposition to a playoff system.

[Byrd]

Noone, and I mean noone, thinks that Oklahoma or Auburn should "get a shot at the national championship" in a single game as it's currently played.

Noone.

I'll bet you could find some OU fans who feel that they won the game in Oregon, and should/would be the top rated 1-loss team. Don't believe me? Check some of the ESPN chats from last week. (Not saying they are right, just saying there are people who believe so)

[Tyche]

Noone, and I mean noone, thinks that Oklahoma or Auburn should "get a shot at the national championship" in a single game as it's currently played.

Noone.

I'll bet you could find some OU fans who feel that they won the game in Oregon, and should/would be the top rated 1-loss team. Don't believe me? Check some of the ESPN chats from last week. (Not saying they are right, just saying there are people who believe so)

Yeah, it's called OU homers. I will admit, though, from the 5th game of the season onward, OU has probably been the most improved team. They went from losing their star QB and going to a wideout at that position, be becoming relatively dominant. I don't think they are a top two team, and i think boise gonna run through them like noone expects. BTW, still haven't heard if peterson is playing.