Larry Posted January 7, 2002 Share Posted January 7, 2002 Heard a commentator a few days ago make a point. (I think it was Rome). He said that this year's bowl games, with people pointing at Nebraska, Oregon, Colorado, and so forth, will once again have people crying for a playoff system, to get rid of the confusion and controversy surrounding these games. He pointed out that the NFL has a playoff system, and everybody agrees that that's why the Super Bowl always has the best two teams, and doesn't have those Rose-Bowl-style blowouts on national TV. (Right?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted January 7, 2002 Share Posted January 7, 2002 I don't about the two best teams thing. The Giants might of been the worst team to make the playoffs ever. Two home playoff games where people claimed they stole the headset signals of the other teams...then they get to Tampa and get blown out of the water. However, I think College Football Playoffs is a must! ------------------ <IMG SRC="http://www.nba.com/media/wizards/kwame_bobble90.gif" border=0> <IMG SRC="http://a188.g.akamaitech.net/f/188/920/1d/www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/images/I44993-2001Sep05" border=0> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted January 7, 2002 Share Posted January 7, 2002 I agree with that. The Giants deserved to make it last year, as they beat everyone who they played. It's pretty rare when we ***** about who makes it, but even so it's hard to argue with how they got there. The closest to a "controversial" Super Bowl representative was Atlanta in '99, when they won because Gary Anderson missed that last second championship field goal for the Vikings. But no one was really howling about the system because the Falcons were deserving that year. Besides, I can think of a couple of mediocre Redskins teams that made the Super Bowl despite having less talent than some of their conference rivals- the '72-'73 Redskins and the '87-'88 Redskins. Even the '91-'92 team was likely less talented than the Cowboys and the 49'ers that year. But it's easy to get behind a system that rewards on-the-field results, isn't it? ------------------ <IMG SRC="http://www.thelocker-room.com/images/RedskinLogo.jpg" border=0> "Loosen up, Sandy baby. You're just too damn tight!" - John Riggins to Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted January 7, 2002 Share Posted January 7, 2002 Due to the injury bug, the Giants took our spot in the superbowl. But I'll leave that alone. If division 2,2a,3 can have football playoffs so should the Major divisions ------------------ Take A Sip of the Marty KoolAid and Believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeSkin Posted January 7, 2002 Share Posted January 7, 2002 The main problem with a playoff system in college is that the AD's don't want the seasons to be any longer, and they also want to be unique...in other words, as far away from the NFL as possible. I don't buy the "the games won't mean anything" arguement, because I still root fiercely for the 'Skins every week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted January 7, 2002 Share Posted January 7, 2002 Will never happen. The Bowls won't allow it. The College Presidents are dead set against it. I would just play all the bowls then have the top two teams remaining after the bowls play the Sunday evening after the NFL conference championship games. That's about all you're going to get. You can keep the old and have something new. A 16,8 or even 4 team playoff won't happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SPare Posted January 7, 2002 Share Posted January 7, 2002 I hear a lot of people who say that a college playoff system is a must, that the BCS is a sham, yadda, yadda, yadda. Hogwash. College football is what it is, and that's a pleasant diversion on Saturday afternoons for students and alumni. A playoff simply takes the game further down a road that I don't think it should go down. Answer me this: why does there even NEED to be a national champion? If you're going to have one, does it matter if two teams have equally fine years and have to share it? Frankly, I just don't care if there's an undisputed champion, I'm just interested in the games themselves. The need to have a definitive champion is driven by the same need for college sports to emulate the pros. The playoff argument is simply another step towards college players being paid professionals. Now, if only the players could pass their midterms on their own..... ------------------ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brave Posted January 7, 2002 Share Posted January 7, 2002 "I can think of a couple of mediocre Redskins teams that made the Super Bowl despite having less talent than some of their conference rivals- the '72-'73 Redskins and the '87-'88 Redskins. Even the '91-'92 team was likely less talented than the Cowboys and the 49'ers that year." - redman I think the '91 super Bowl team deserves consideration as one of the best teams EVER. On paper, the star-power may not "wow" you (I assume that's what you meant) but that team absolutely DOMINATED that season. They rolled over teams statistically like few have before or since. To see them mentioned as "mediocre" or "less talented" is quite curious to me. Have I misunderstood you, redman? If so, please set me straight. I also think the '72 team was deserving of their spot in the Super Bowl. There was plenty of talent on that team and they went 11-3 losing a couple of very close games. I was but a small lad, but I seem to recall them taking (tying or winning) points off the board vs. the Pats because of a penalty and then coming away with no points and losing by a point (you've heard the old "Never take points off the board" rule of course.) They handily beat the Packers and the Cowboys in the playoffs and were actually favored by 2 points in the Super Bowl against the undefeated Dolphins. I might somewhat agree about the '87 team in that I don't consider them among the most talented teams to make the Super Bowl. They sure did put on a show in that 2nd quarter though didn't they! [ by Brave on January 07, 2002.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.