What is Digg?139 Comments
- quomen, on 12/01/2008, -1/+37Not mysterious, just stupid.
- gpickett00, on 12/01/2008, -2/+24This is totally misleading to say that this is part of Obama's national agenda. Chris Berman asked Obama, "If you could change one thing about sports, what would it be?" Obama suggested getting rid of the BCS and McCain said he would crack down on steroid usage in baseball. There is a difference between answering a hypothetical question and drawing up plans for what you are going to accomplish in the White House. Do you think the president of the United States would really step up on the podium Jan. 20 and Declare: "Today is the change we have all been waiting for in America. There will no longer be BCS and it will be replaced by a playoff." I don't think that power was delegated to the executive branch in the original constitution, but what do I know?
- myklee, on 12/01/2008, -2/+19I HATE NOTRE DAME.
- shadowblade989, on 12/01/2008, -1/+18Has anyone looked at the BCS ranking criteria?
4. Notre Dame, if they finish in the top 8
not even joking: http://www.collegebcs.com/bcsfaq.html - ShoeSh1ne, on 12/01/2008, -1/+13GT isn't in the SEC.
- TexasShiv, on 12/01/2008, -2/+10As a senior at the University of Texas...
GIVE ME A ***** PLAYOFF SYSTEM!!! - badqat, on 12/01/2008, -11/+18I'll disagree. It ought to be at least 16 teams. Yes, that means one game would have to be subtracted from the season, but it would give it more of a tournament atmosphere, and it wouldn't just be an SEC dominated playoff (even though that's hands down the best football conference there is).
Check out FCS, Div II, Div III and NAIA...Division II allows 24 teams in by giving eight a bye while requiring 16 to play a first round game to meet one of the bye teams. - bossm4n, on 12/01/2008, -0/+7I somewhat understand the logic since ND is an independent, but it's seems unbalanced since they go on to note that any other independent would have to finish #1 or #2 in order to get an automatic bid. Shows you how much clout ND has. Of course after this season, that might change.
- crweaks23, on 12/01/2008, -0/+6@betterth... um, yes you can. To look at the best conference RIGHT NOW, the past 10 years are irrelevant. Not that you're at all objective, based on the tone of your comment.
- jba68, on 12/01/2008, -6/+12The sec is not the best conference hands down. /FFS
Check the top ten, SEC has 2 teams in bcs top ten, Big 12 has 3, and 5 in the top 20. Florida and Alabama are good teams, but it cannot be said the sec is hands down the better conference than the big 12. - SpanishMongoose, on 03/02/2009, -6/+12How can you claim that SEC would dominate the playoff system. In the current BCS standings there's only four SEC teams, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Georgia Tech. The Big 12 has five teams, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, and Missouri. The Big Ten also has four teams in the standings, Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan State, Northwestern. With other divisions having two to three in the standings. Of the two SEC teams only two are in the top ten while the Big 12 has three teams in the top ten. So please explain.
- longhorn627, on 12/01/2008, -9/+14We got hosed.
- kidathinnes, on 12/01/2008, -0/+4@*****
Learn how to avoid run on sentences before you act smarter than everyone else, moron. - ezmac, on 12/01/2008, -1/+5the only good teams in the sec this year are alabama and florida....lsu, the defending champs, suck, georgia lost to ga tech, and clemson, one of the ***** acc teams this year, beat south car....im not gonna lie, the acc has looked pretty ***** this year, but it definitely seems deeper than the sec. also, big 12 is up there with a much deeper conference.
- TexasShiv, on 12/01/2008, -1/+5SEC is the hands down best football conference? Bahahahaha. Okay.
You're going to end up with Ole Miss as your third best team in your conference. The Big 12's 4th best team could beat Ole Miss, handily.
STFU, and get your bias out of here. - Vindicoth, on 12/01/2008, -1/+5Keep posting on digg.
Keep being a hypocrite.
What have you taken part in that " ACTUALLY exist. " I'm pretty sure all 3 of those things you list, actually EXIST. I don't understand what you're trying to say? - kevinrmcguire, on 12/01/2008, -2/+6I've always been in favor of a 16 team playoff, giving automatic bids to each conference champ.
- meruru, on 12/01/2008, -1/+4I'm sure team #5 would disagree with you
- kidathinnes, on 12/01/2008, -0/+3Keep crying, keep losing.
- reddevild, on 12/01/2008, -1/+4would you also include a bid to the top independent? b/c with that, you would be giving 12 automatic bids (if you include top independent) but how would you determine the other 4/5 that would get in, since this would be removing the BCS altogether (which i am entirely in favor of). The playoff system would be one of the best things, in my opinion, to happen to college football. Just look at the Big 12 South this year, that is all i really need to say.
- xxxMrWhitexxx, on 12/01/2008, -0/+3Here is the reason this happened
OU has had a slightly tougher schedule then Texas (though texas had a really tough series of games in a row) and not only did they just beat Texas Tech they completely owned them
If you look at the scores between the same teams Oklahoma played and Texas played (Baylor, OK state, A&M, Texas Tech, Kansas) Oklahoma beat those teams by a difference 148 and difference in scores for Texas was 89.... a difference of 59 points
Texas beat Oklahoma by 10 points... Texas lost to Texas Tech by 7 points, and then Oklahoma beat Texas Tech by 44 points. Texas might of got lucky and the BCS sees that and thats why they bumped down. I can see why this is not easy for Texas to swallow though... The BCS system is F#$%ed up but has its logic
I am a fan of a play-off system... I would love to see Oklahoma and Texas play again, because watching Oklahoma slaughtering MU is going to be boring compared to playing Texas again which would be a good game
I completely agree that Texas should be considered for NC and it is possible if Florida barely beats Alabama.... Oklahoma vs Texas NC would be epic - bicyclethief, on 12/01/2008, -2/+5Inevitably there'd be controversy over the 8 teams selected.
Just like with the big Div I NCAA basketball tournament. Even with 65 teams, there's always some that are undeservedly snubbed. - Vindicoth, on 12/01/2008, -0/+3and by girlfriend, you mean your right hand.
- TexasShiv, on 12/01/2008, -0/+3I'm sure the N+1 team will always disagree. So please, shutup.
- cromulent742, on 12/01/2008, -1/+4So what if they lose? Then they don't deserve to be national champions. The point is that it needs to be decided on the field of play.
- Loonatickle, on 12/01/2008, -0/+3OU and Texas are both legitimate #2s. Florida lost to Old Miss at home and should be 4.
- wrmjr, on 12/01/2008, -1/+4True, they are undeservedly snubbed, but the ones who are snubbed don't realistically have a chance of winning it all. What they have been snubbed from is the honor of being in the tournament. That's important, but it doesn't have a huge effect on the eventual national champion in most cases. Also, in the basketball tourney, a number of teams get in by winning their conference tournament; otherwise they wouldn't get in. This wouldn't be the case in football.
Personally, I'd go with 12 teams and the top 4 have a first round bye. There would be bickering around 12/13, but realistically those teams are likely to lose 51-14 at some point. The real arguments would be at 4/5. - inactive, on 12/01/2008, -0/+3wow, this guy is an *****
- FredFredrickson, on 12/01/2008, -1/+4Because being afraid of a comment that was obviously made in jest makes perfect sense, right?
- Maron8515, on 12/01/2008, -0/+2You guys realize that college football players aren't professional athletes, don't you? Some of them are actually trying to go to school to earn a degree, and football happens to be a great way to earn a lucrative scholarship.
I'm attending a D1 school who was in and out of the top 25 this season, and all of our players are degree-seeking. Very few actually have a shot at playing football beyond college, so they have to attend classes and make decent grades. They have a hard enough time passing classes as it is, if you extend the season by three or four weeks then they wouldn't have a hope at getting a degree.
Don't forget that most of these kids have commitments outside of football, they don't have the time or energy to play a professionally intensive schedule. An extensive playoff series would be great for tv and the fans, but not so much for the players. - jordanlgta, on 12/01/2008, -3/+5Alabama is #1 as they should be. Texas or Florida should be #2. Oklahoma should not be #2. They should be #3 or #4.
- sinurgy, on 12/01/2008, -2/+4If they're going to do that then they need to require all conferences to have a conference championship game or none of them. I'm tired of USC "winning" their conference while teams in the Big 12 and SEC have to endure the trap game that is the conference championship.
Oh and for the record, you'd have to be a serious fanboy to call the SEC better than the Big 12 this year. - Nudar, on 12/01/2008, -0/+2Unfortunately that's baloney as Division II, Division III and NAIA all have a football playoff system.
- jba68, on 12/01/2008, -0/+2Considering I am talking about 2008, I am looking at this years teams, records and polls
- deslock, on 12/01/2008, -0/+2Hey albo7:
What does most wins in the past have ANYTHING to do with how good your football team is today?
ND is the prime example. Two years ago they were darlings, the very next year they had their worst season in history. Lot of good all those decades of wins did them.
A playoff is about good fun football watching and finding the best team(s), not proping up someones legacy.
So screw ND and Michigan. Deliver on your pride or sit on your hands until next year. - MojoJonJon, on 12/01/2008, -0/+2The system needs to be changed somehow. This year the debate for UT and OU can be argued in circles. The same thing can happen every year and has happened. Why is there not a logical group of people that want to change the game for the better? Teams should start boycotting (and giving up bowl money) to make the point that it needs to be changed. Unless someone does something different, nothing is going to get changed.
- PGPirate, on 12/01/2008, -1/+316 team playoff
11 teams - Champs from the 11 conferences
5 - At large (The NDs of the world would come in here. Also, they could all come from the same conference, if those teams were the best, based on rankings)
Take out the 12th regular season game, for the playoffs
1st round at the top seed. The rest of the games will be played at the top.
The only sticking point are conference championship games. Either every conference should have it, or none. If every conference has one, than I believe every conference should be 12. That would cause some conference to disappear. i.e. Four teams from the CUSA would go to the BE. Four teams from the Sun Belt/MAC would go to the CUSA. Would their be enough D-1A teams to fill the void? - UselessTrivia, on 12/01/2008, -1/+3Obama can't do anything about it until the BCS contract runs out. That's either in 2012 or 2014 I think.
Personally I think the BCS might make a good mechanism to slot teams into a playoff. Take the top 8 or 16 teams from the BCS and put them in. But I think you either need to give every conference a championship game, or take them all away. It is unfair for some teams to have an extra game to rack up points in the BCS and not others.
I'd say get rid of the conference championships and do 16 teams instead of 8. NCAA regs will probably require pushing some or all of the games into January, though. The players are students and have to take finals. No games allowed. - aftern9ne, on 12/01/2008, -1/+3Funny that you throw around BCS rankings in order to justify that the SEC isn't the best, when the entire discussion is why the BCS holds the SEC back.
It's had better years, but the SEC is consistently at the top of college football. - xxxMrWhitexxx, on 12/01/2008, -0/+2I agree OU and Texas are both legitimate 2s and maybe we will see Florida barely beat Alabama and that could possibly send Texas to NC with OU which would be a awesome to watch
- xienze, on 12/01/2008, -0/+1Oh please. Most of these games would occur in mid to late December when, um, they don't have school! You're also forgetting that in a playoff system, only two of the teams would actually play to the end. The majority of the kids will be gone after the first two weeks (for a 16 team playoff).
- austin63, on 12/01/2008, -0/+1Auburn 2004, the bitterness doesn't go away.
- SlyT862, on 12/01/2008, -0/+1It's irrelevant whether Florida or a Big 12 team is currently #2. The winner of the SEC championship will play the winner of the Big 12 championship.
- coyote1284, on 12/01/2008, -1/+2Obama doesn't *feel* like he has to meddle with this, he was just answering a fluff question, not making policy.
/Excuse my minor Grammar Nazi-ism. I usually leave stuff like there/their/they're alone, but that was a new substitution for me. - crhein, on 12/01/2008, -0/+1Yes, that's an appropriate argument. "STFU and get your bias out of here".
Perhaps his bias isn't as good as yours, but your argument is a bit tenuous. - drstulsa, on 12/01/2008, -0/+1Regardless of how the system is configured, someone is going to get 'hosed'. I'm guessing the reasoning behind going with the BCS for the tie breaker has something to do with putting the team with the best chance to make it to the NC game in the Big XII game.
I'm sure Texas, as the second place BCS finisher, would put forward a great team as the Big XII champ, but this would not always be the case. In a world of infinite possibilities some objective system has to be used. The Big XII chose to settle the issue using the BCS rankings.
There are plenty of reasons to argue for this system or that system, but the overwhelming reason people seem to use is that it best suits them or their opinion at the moment. It is a rare situation where a coach will rant about the system that just favored them over a rival. Texas had no problem with the system when they were favored, but now that the shoe is on the other foot, there seems to be a serious problem. The same can be said of Stoops. There is far less talk of a playoff system from him now that the Sooners have received the nod.
Should be a good show either way. - TexasShiv, on 12/01/2008, -0/+1If you look at the scores between the same teams Oklahoma played and Texas played (Baylor, OK state, A&M, Texas Tech, Kansas) Oklahoma beat those teams by a difference 148 and difference in scores for Texas was 89.... a difference of 59 points
Texas also has some class and takes the foot off the pedal when it's throttling an open. You know things have gotten ridiculous when Bob Stoops is still running the ball with 30 seconds left in the game when a knee down would have sufficed. It's really sad matter of affairs when beating an opponent by 35 is no longer sufficient, but need to put 60 on the board to seem legit.
We could have kept Colt in the game against A&M in the fourth, we didn't. We could have run up the score against Kansas in KU, we didn't. Mack was asked why he didn't, and he simply responded, "We don't do that."
Tim Tebow being in against the Citadel up 60 points is disgusting. - randomizer9, on 12/01/2008, -0/+1I think its funny that computers helped screw up college football, something of a 'Revenge of The Nerds' thing going on there. A playoff would be huge, though, and could rival the Super Bowl, its a shame we'll never see it.
- cromulent742, on 12/01/2008, -0/+1Because you have to. If you don't give everyone a shot, then you haven't improved over the BCS at all.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 141 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is