Who's the best in nation ???

Ohio schools..........you never know!

 

I don't see why their history is relevant. I'm talking about non-conference mach-ups involving top 25 teams and at least solid opponents. Duke and Army both have a college football history, but that doesn't make them a tough opponent today. Moreover, I don't know why you're pretending that it proves your point when it actually obliterates your point. You claimed that "there are currently on a few big games on any football schedule." I proved you wrong by showing how many examples there were in just the first four weeks of the season, and it would be nice if you could admit that.

Why don't you prove it? I provided plenty of examples of big non-conference match-ups in football, but I have seen nothing to support your claim that the percentage in basketball "vastly outweighs the percentage of like football games." Show your work.

2 cupcakes a year sounds about right, but that's not excessive by any stretch. It's unrealistic to expect top teams to only schedule other top teams every week, especially when they have to fight through a tough conference schedule. Also, keep in mind that your unfamiliarity with college football might prevent you from realizing that someone like Middle Tennessee State or Central Florida is a solid team. James Madison, by contrast, is a cupcake. Appalachian was also supposed to be.

It isn't. Look back at what people were writing about the Colts prior to the playoffs. No one thought they were the best team in the NFL or even close to it.

Because playoffs generate the most money. Also, they don't have the weight of tradition. Honestly, I would have been fine if the bowls had just kept their traditional conference associations.

 

I decided to do some of your work for you. I have no idea if UNC's schedule is representative of the average top team or not, but I looked at their non-conference opponents:

Davidson - good
Iona - unbelievably awful
SC State - come on
Old Dominion - good
Ohio State - very good
Kentucky - very good
Pennsylvania - decent
Rutgers - bad
Nicholls State - very bad
UCSB - decent
Nevada - good
Valpo - bad
Kent State - pretty good
UNCA - not good

So that's a pretty decent schedule. But look at Florida:

ND State - decent
Tenn Tech - decent
NCCU - awful
Rutgers - bad
North Florida - unbelievably bad
FSU - pretty good
Stetson - bad
Vermont - pretty good
Jacksonville - bad
FAMU - decent
Georgia Southern - bad
Charleston Southern - terrible
Ohio State - very good
Temple - bad
High Point - decent

Again, I have no idea how representative these teams are, but it looks like UNC has a solid schedule of non-conference opponents while Florida has a very high percentage of cupcakes. That more or less confirms what I expected, which was that aside from rivalries, conference competitions (ACC-BigTen Challenge), and Invitationals, you're not going to get more than 1 or 2 additional big matchup games in college basketball.

 

i get so sick of the bowl appologists and the bcs appologists and the fucking fbs or whatever the hell they are calling themselves this year trying to tell us why D1A football doesnt need a playoff system. i guess the rest of the fucking wide world of sports has it wrong. the NFL, the NBA, MLB, NCAA basketball, NCAA Baseball, soccer, hockey, field hockey, tennis, every NCHSAA sport in all divisions, football, basketball, baseball, tennis, soccer, volleyball, World Cup Soccer, and every other fucking sport known to mankind holds a post season tournament to determine their champion. BUT HELL NO...we gotta listen to a bunch of dog shit reasons and pure bull shit as to why they cant.

riiiiight. we're all stupid rednecks that chew tobacky and fuck sheep. thats why we dont get it.

they can fuck off and i do hope their stupid ass "system" continues to expose their greed.

 

Didn't you mother ever teach you that "everyone else is doing it" isn't a valid line of reasoning?

If my reasoning was bullshit, you wouldn't be scared to argue the issue.

Well you are stupid, but I'll have to take your word on the tobacco and sheep fucking.

As has been stated several times now, a playoff would make more money, not less. It's not about the money and never has been, but some people are too stupid to see anything else.

 

collin, i like you. you are thought provoking and interesting. my beef is not with you. this argument goes beyond the realm of common sense and has everything to do with big bowl money and the powers that be. one of these days, maybe not in my life time, but one of these days.....there will be a tournament. and all the arguments and speculation will be left to those who are left out each season.

its time for a change. lets do this the right way. the only way.

 

You hold your opinion either because you are fundamentally stupid or because you've never actually thought about the question, hopefully the latter. You can't even attempt to answer my points regarding the flaws of a playoff system, and instead you have to pretend that the merits of a playoff are self-evident when they're anything but. The truth is that most of the sheeple clammoring for changes to the BCS have never even thought about the ramifications, or even if their proposal would actually fix the stuff they bitch about now (clue: it wouldn't).

 

If a college football playoff system would be "flawed" then I guess every other playoff system (that every pro and college sport uses) must also be flawed.

Is the Div-1 (the old Div. 1-AA) playoff system flawed? I mean they only invite in 16 teams. I wonder if the Mountaineers want to hand back those two trophies they won since the whole playoff system is "flawed" anyway.

 

Yes, they are. Have you not been paying attention to what I've been saying? Something like the NCAA tournament is very good at providing entertainment, but awful at determining the "best team." Similarly, the playoffs in baseball have become much worse at doing so once the wild cards were added. I have no idea if App has been the best team in D1-AA in each of their championship seasons because I don't really follow that level, but they weren't a top seed in '05 were they?

 

You don't? I would have thought that you knew that schedules are booked far in advance. So, if you are booking them far in advance, you would need to have a pretty good idea as to wether or not a team would be good for that long. And as we debated here a whle ago, there are very few teams that fall into that category.

I thought we were talking about big games. I wouldn't think of a game with a top 25 opponent and some other team from 26-50 as a big game.

See above

Using head's list, this is what the "big" games for each team looks like:

USC - (at #14 Nebraska, at #10 Oregon, #12 California, at #8 Arizona St)
LSU - (#9 Va Tech, #12 S Carolina, #9 Florida, at #17 Kentucky, #17 Auburn)
WVU - ( at #18 S Florida, at #23 Cincy)
Texas - (#19 TCU, Kansas St, #10 Oklahoma, Nebraska, #24 Texas Tech,)
Michigan - (Oregon, #10 Penn State, , at Wisconsin, #1 Ohio St)
Florida - (#22 Tennessee, Auburn, at #1 LSU, at #7 Kentucky, at #20 Georgia, at #6 S Carolina)
Wisconsin – (at #1 Ohio St, #25 Michigan)
Oklahoma - (Miami, at #19 Texas, #11 Missouri, #24 Texas Tech)
VT - ( #2 LSU, at #22 Clemson,#3 BC, at #19 Virginia)
Louisville - (at #15 Cincy,, at #9 W Virginia, at #2 S Florida)

Most of those games are conference games, which teh schools have no control over. A good number of those teams that are ranked are also not going to consistently be in the top 25. And I am not going to debate the meaning of few.

I’ll be happy too, but as noted before, I disagree with your definition of “big.” And, to be fair, basketball does have a built in advantage because of preseason tourneys and the fact that BB schedules are not planned out as far in advance as football schedules.

2 cupcakes out of how many non-conference games? And I understand tha it would be difficult to schedule them, but if schools had the incentive to do so, then they would find a way.

So now that MTSU game falls into the big game category? Um, no.

Didn’t they have a significant injury loss return in Sanders? Don’t you think that could make a difference in how good they are?

So, would you prefer to have some writers and a bunch of writers and stat geeks determine wh are the best two and let them play? Do you really think that they could consistently do a better job?

Playoffs may indeed generate a lot, but that does not mean that they would not award the championship to the best team at the time. But unless we are going to go to a structure similar to European soccer leagues, then you are stuck with tournaments being the better way to determine the best team, IMO.