Final Polls

[Snaggletiger]

We don't need a flag, this is our country, you bastard!

No flag, no country. You can't have one.

[War Eagle!!!]

So the alternative is to pick and choose who we "think" or "feel" are the better teams based on subjective biased opinion?

What's the fuckin' point of a playoff in the first place then? This is BCS, or worse, pre-BCS mentality.

If a team doesn't empirically prove to be the best team on the field in a head-to-head matchup, or by losing the least amount of games to common opponents (i.e. their division peers), then they fucked up and missed their shot. There's always next year.

Instead, we have this system that gives certain teams (first and foremost Bama) the benefit of the doubt, because, well, Saban. Wash rinse repeat. Same ordained programs every year. Boring.

You are not going to have the pre-ordained same 8 teams every year.

I like the subjective approach with 8 teams. Not a conference champ for 8 teams. That's just me. You have your opinion, and although it is stupid, I respect it.

[Godfather]

I agree with Chizad in theory, however the Conferences would need to be realigned to make sense in terms of difficulty.  That ain't never gonna happen though. You have a better chance at 8 with the subjective poll.

[War Eagle!!!]

I agree with Chizad in theory, however the Conferences would need to be realigned to make sense in terms of difficulty.  That ain't never gonna happen though. You have a better chance at 8 with the subjective poll.

Shit doesn't happen in theory...so I am right...

[AUChizad]

I agree with Chizad in theory, however the Conferences would need to be realigned to make sense in terms of difficulty.  That ain't never gonna happen though. You have a better chance at 8 with the subjective poll.

Again, everyone keeps getting hung up on this notion that the SEC would be impossible to beat.

First of all, we're not going to be this dominant forever. These things go in cycles. People have really short memories. Remember 2004? The SEC wasn't considered strong enough compared to the Big 12 & Pac 10 to get a shot.

Secondly, if it's the best team in the SEC, crowned by the fair, equitable system of an SEC championship, then what's the point in more SEC vs. SEC games? You either redundancy, or raise more questions than answers, i.e. LSU last year. LSU & Bama had the same records last year, and now they're 1-1 vs. eachother. LSU proving it when it mattered, then beating the best team they didn't already play would have been infinitely more satisfying to me than making the do-over count for realzies, while the regular season basically doesn't mean shit.

[AUChizad]

Shit doesn't happen in theory...so I am right...

You are blind to the irony of the fact that you are arguing for "theory". You don't want it played on the field. You want to "theorize" about who you "think" is better.

[GH2001]

Notre Dame should be behind UGA and aTm also. Those teams didn't look like complete clusterfuck when playing Alabama...

This ^^

Nd gets buttfucked by Bama. Aggy and uga did not.

[War Eagle!!!]

You are blind to the irony of the fact that you are arguing for "theory". You don't want it played on the field. You want to "theorize" about who you "think" is better.

I am just fucking with you dude. Don't go all "saints" on me.

But for real...I just think the system should be that the best 8 teams should play regardless of conference affiliation. No more. no less. I just don't think that the conference champ thing works because all conferences are not equal. In size. Power. Money. Nothing.

[Saniflush]

I am just fucking with you dude. Don't go all "saints" on me.

Saints?   

They cheat.

[Godfather]

Again, everyone keeps getting hung up on this notion that the SEC would be impossible to beat.

First of all, we're not going to be this dominant forever. These things go in cycles. People have really short memories. Remember 2004? The SEC wasn't considered strong enough compared to the Big 12 & Pac 10 to get a shot.

Secondly, if it's the best team in the SEC, crowned by the fair, equitable system of an SEC championship, then what's the point in more SEC vs. SEC games? You either redundancy, or raise more questions than answers, i.e. LSU last year. LSU & Bama had the same records last year, and now they're 1-1 vs. eachother. LSU proving it when it mattered, then beating the best team they didn't already play would have been infinitely more satisfying to me than making the do-over count for realzies, while the regular season basically doesn't mean shit.

Easy boy, I agree with you.  What I said had no bearing on the SEC.  My belief though is that some conferences are much easier to win in (based on history).  That being said does a 3 loss WAC team that won their conference deserve to be in a playoff more than a one loss PAC12 or BIG12 or even a BIG 10 or ACC team?  So yeah subjective may not be fair, but neither is that. 

So IMO the only way to get true winner would be to create divisons with no affiliations and that will never happen.

[AUChizad]

Easy boy, I agree with you.  What I said had no bearing on the SEC.  My belief though is that some conferences are much easier to win in (based on history).  That being said does a 3 loss WAC team that won their conference deserve to be in a playoff more than a one loss PAC12 or BIG12 or even a BIG 10 or ACC team?  So yeah subjective may not be fair, but neither is that.

In my opinion? Yes. It is. At the very least, it's infinitely more fair than subjectively dumping who the media "thinks" should go is.

We may not think a 3 Loss WAC team has a chance against a 3 loss PAC12 team. But we would never know unless they play. Maybe, just maybe, the WAC is insanely strong one year and they beat eachother up all year. You'd never know, because we don't "feel" like a team from the WAC could possibly stand up to a team from the Big 10, so it is written, and so it shall be done. I say bullshit. Put them on the field and let's see.

I think you'll find upsets and "the impossible" happening more often in the system I'm proposing.

[Snaggletiger]

In my opinion? Yes. It is. At the very least, it's infinitely more fair than subjectively dumping who the media "thinks" should go is.

We may not think a 3 Loss WAC team has a chance against a 3 loss PAC12 team. But we would never know unless they play. Maybe, just maybe, the WAC is insanely strong one year and they beat eachother up all year. You'd never know, because we don't "feel" like a team from the WAC could possibly stand up to a team from the Big 10, so it is written, and so it shall be done. I say bullshit. Put them on the field and let's see.

I think you'll find upsets and "the impossible" happening more often in the system I'm proposing.

But, if you create a system that only uses the opinion polls as a percentage of the criteria used to rank the teams, you don't get the bias you had when we went strictly by the AP or Coaches Poll or UPI as we have in years past. That's what the BCS ranking system does right now.  The one and only thing I hate about the BCS system is that the end result is 2 teams that get to play over about 125 others...when there is absolutely no way you can prove that #1 is clearly better and more deserving than #4.  But when you get down to the end of the season, I can live with the 8 teams as they're ranked. 

As for conference champions, if New Mexico State wins their conference with 3 losses and their OOC schedule includes Savannah State, UAB and Richmond, then no way they deserve to even be remotely considered to be in a playoff.