11 team fantasy playoff, you pick the winners thread

[dnemchik]

This year the teams that deserved a shot at the championship were
Florida State (AC champs)
Auburn (SE champs)
Michigan State (B10 champs)
Stanford (Pac champs)
Baylor (B12 champs)
Central Florida (best of the non power5 champs)
add any 2 other teams you wish using whatever criteria you want and let them play it out on the field in quarters, semis, + a true championship

It would have been great to see

 

[4down20]

Win or lose on the field is what football is all about and therefore claiming a national champion without a proper playoff is a joke. Certainly next years 4 team playoff will be a huge improvement but until the best teams take the field against each other, d1a college football will continue to have a fantasy national champion

You may favor an 8 team playoff or a 16 team playoff or an 11 team one like I do, but if they dont put the 5 power5 conference champs (+ at least the highest ranked conference champ from among the other conferences) on the field against each other, youll still have a fantasy paper champion

Even if you dont favor an 11 team playoff like I do. If you include at least the 5 power5 conference champs + the highest ranked conference champ from among the other d1a conferences, youll have 6 teams that legitimately deserve a shot at the championship. Add 2 more teams and you have 8 for a quarterfinal

Theres about 125 d1a teams. Letting the top 8 (or top 11) fight it out on the field is long overdue

I don't favor a playoff at all really. I'd just like to see a game or 2 added as needed, which isn't every year.

Anyone who thinks the National Championship isn't decided on the field is just plain wrong. Case in point is Alabama and Auburn. If Alabama wins on the field, they are in that game. Auburn won and now they are in that game(provided both beat Missouri anyway, had Missouri beat Auburn they would have been in the game).

If Michigan St beats Notre Dame, they are in. If Baylor went undefeated, they are in.

So I don't know where people such as yourself get this notion that it's decided on paper.

 

[dnemchik]

So I don't know where people such as yourself get this notion that it's decided on paper.

I know where I got the notion

Florida State (AC champs), Auburn (SE champs), Alabama, & Ohio State all have gotten/will get a chance to claim the championship

Michigan State (B10 champs), Stanford (Pac champs), Baylor (B12 champs), & Central Florida all didnt get a shot and all 4 deserved a shot. You can make a case that Stanford & Baylor dont deserve a shot because they both lost their bowl games but no one knew that in advance. Even if they had won like Michigan State & Central Florida did they werent going to get a chance

Years ago before the BCS, before the Bowl Alliance, before the Bowl Coalition there was honesty. There was no college champion (except on paper) and no one pretended that there was one. If you dont want to give an on field chance to those teams that have earned it, then we should go back to that setup and not pretend there is a single champion. Decide your conference champ in whatever method you chose, play your bowl game, & go back to school. Dont pretend that you have a legitimate champion. Just play the bowls and walk away

 

[dnemchik]

If Michigan St beats Notre Dame, they are in. If Baylor went undefeated, they are in.

If you think a single loss disqualifies a team from being deserving, then we should cancel this years BCS game because Auburn already has a loss. Florida State should be given the title by default as the only undefeated team left. Florida State should be given the title without having to play anyone.

Michigan State won their power 5 conference. They should have gotten a chance to play for the college championship on the field

 

[4down20]

I know where I got the notion

Florida State (AC champs), Auburn (SE champs), Alabama, & Ohio State all have gotten/will get a chance to claim the championship

Michigan State (B10 champs), Stanford (Pac champs), Baylor (B12 champs), & Central Florida all didnt get a shot and all 4 deserved a shot. You can make a case that Stanford & Baylor dont deserve a shot because they both lost their bowl games but no one knew that in advance. Even if they had won like Michigan State & Central Florida did they werent going to get a chance

Years ago before the BCS, before the Bowl Alliance, before the Bowl Coalition there was honesty. There was no college champion (except on paper) and no one pretended that there was one. If you dont want to give an on field chance to those teams that have earned it, then we should go back to that setup and not pretend there is a single champion. Decide your conference champ in whatever method you chose, play your bowl game, & go back to school. Dont pretend that you have a legitimate champion. Just play the bowls and walk away

Michigan St had a shot, they lost to Notre Dame.
Stanford had a shot, they lost to Utah AND USC.
Baylor had a shot, they lost to Oklahoma St.

All of these teams would have been in if undefeated.

Auburn got in because they had 1 loss and they had the best schedule and the best win. Not rocket science.

Central Florida doesn't belong and wouldn't have even made it in with a playoff.

Things sucked way worse than before the BCS. I don't know how old you are, but I was a fan back before the BCS and it sucked. It was pure luck to even get #1 vs #2 most years, so you had teams playing all because of bowl associations.

To claim anything before bowl associations you have to go back to like the 40's. Which is

The BCS was great for college football. And was easily the most rewarding to all the smaller schools. TCU got to go to Rose Bowls, etc.

 

[4down20]

If you think a single loss disqualifies a team from being deserving, then we should cancel this years BCS game because Auburn already has a loss. Florida State should be given the title by default as the only undefeated team left. Florida State should be given the title without having to play anyone.

Michigan State won their power 5 conference. They should have gotten a chance to play for the college championship on the field

Conference championships mean shit. It should always be about taking the best teams. If there conference champion isn't among the best teams, there is a reason for it.

 

[7Samurai13]

Conference championships mean shit. It should always be about taking the best teams. If there conference champion isn't among the best teams, there is a reason for it.

Obviously a bama would think that conference championships mean shit.

 

[4down20]

Obviously a bama would think that conference championships mean shit.

Yeah yeah, but still 95% of the time the teams in the hunt are going to be conference champions. Because it's usually the best teams.

 

[dnemchik]

Conference championships mean shit. It should always be about taking the best teams. If there conference champion isn't among the best teams, there is a reason for it.

Theres a reason that 6 conferences got the AQ label from the BCS. They have 99% of the best d1a teams in those 6 conferences. And now that the football part of the BigEast has imploded, we have the power 5.

99% of the best teams & they play every team in their division and the best of each division plays the conference title game. How much more definitive do you want ?

And you say "Conference championships mean shit". What are you talking about ? Youre not making any sense

"It should always be about taking the best teams". If you dont define that by recognizing the achievement of the power 5 conference champs, then what ? Are you satisfied with polls deciding whos best ? AP poll ? BCS poll ?

I always hear endless complaining about polls and how bad they are. I dont agree with all of the poll haters but if the polls arent taken seriously by most fans then how legit is the champ going to be ?

The power 5 conference champs have earned the right to play for the college championship. 1 vs 2 BCS doesnt do that. 4 team playoffs doesnt do that

 

[dnemchik]

Auburn got in because they had 1 loss and they had the best schedule and the best win. Not rocket science.

"they had the best schedule"
Thats an opinion of the polls not established "rocket science"
If a team is a conference champ, thats NOT an opinion. Its a concrete definitive achievement

Central Florida doesn't belong and wouldn't have even made it in with a playoff.

Central Florida was the best no power 5 conference champ, so yes, they do belong this year and if the playoffs were setup correctly they would have made it in

Things sucked way worse than before the BCS. I don't know how old you are, but I was a fan back before the BCS and it sucked. It was pure luck to even get #1 vs #2 most years, so you had teams playing all because of bowl associations.

To claim anything before bowl associations you have to go back to like the 40's. Which is

The BCS was great for college football. And was easily the most rewarding to all the smaller schools. TCU got to go to Rose Bowls, etc.

TCU getting included (the best nonAQ champ) was one single good idea/rule by the BCS. But the overall concept of not determining a champ by on field playoffs was terrible

My dad was a true football fanatic and every game televised played on our TV. I grew up being a Fran Tarkenton fan, so that mite give you an idea of my age. I thought college football preBCS was honest. It was, what it was, and didnt pretend to be what it wasnt. Now we have pretend champs that only face one of the other legit contenders. Its fantasy football

 

[4down20]

Theres a reason that 6 conferences got the AQ label from the BCS. They have 99% of the best d1a teams in those 6 conferences. And now that the football part of the BigEast has imploded, we have the power 5.

99% of the best teams & they play every team in their division and the best of each division plays the conference title game. How much more definitive do you want ?

And you say "Conference championships mean shit". What are you talking about ? Youre not making any sense

"It should always be about taking the best teams". If you dont define that by recognizing the achievement of the power 5 conference champs, then what ? Are you satisfied with polls deciding whos best ? AP poll ? BCS poll ?

I always hear endless complaining about polls and how bad they are. I dont agree with all of the poll haters but if the polls arent taken seriously by most fans then how legit is the champ going to be ?

The power 5 conference champs have earned the right to play for the college championship. 1 vs 2 BCS doesnt do that. 4 team playoffs doesnt do that

So Wisconsin shoulda been a playoff team last year? Hell no.

What about Stanford this year? Hell no. And I'm a bit of a Stanford fan btw.

If they are among the best, they will picked. Period. If they aren't treated as being the best and don't quality as the best even while winning a conference championship, there is a reason for it.

 

[4down20]

"they had the best schedule"
Thats an opinion of the polls not established "rocket science"
If a team is a conference champ, thats NOT an opinion. Its a concrete definitive achievement

There are tons of different strength of schedule formulas out there and they all basically say the same thing even though the actual ranking number may vary. Auburn played a tougher schedule. You are merely trying to deflect from that fact by claiming it's only opinion.

By taking conference champs it becomes best to be in a weak conference rather than a tougher conference. And that is dumb.

Central Florida was the best no power 5 conference champ, so yes, they do belong this year and if the playoffs were setup correctly they would have made it inTCU getting included (the best nonAQ champ) was one single good idea/rule by the BCS. But the overall concept of not determining a champ by on field playoffs was terrible

There is a playoff already, it's called the regular season. This isn't the NFL where teams can lose many games and make the playoffs. The only time a real playoff is needed is when there are more than 2 deserving teams, which does happen. Most recently 2011 was a case when you had LSU obviously being the 1 to make it, while Alabama and Oklahoma St were also both deserving. IMO it should only add a game when needed, Alabama should have played Oklahoma St that year to see who would face LSU. A 4 team playoff takes care of that now.

My dad was a true football fanatic and every game televised played on our TV. I grew up being a Fran Tarkenton fan, so that mite give you an idea of my age. I thought college football preBCS was honest. It was, what it was, and didnt pretend to be what it wasnt. Now we have pretend champs that only face one of the other legit contenders. Its fantasy football

You make no sense. You claim a system that rarely even pitted #1 vs #2 at the end of the year as being honest and better than the current BCS system which does. While at the same time claiming only a playoff can decide a true champion.

Nevermind that calling the old polls honest is a crock of shit. They were often times extremely biased towards the east and west coast where the majority of writers lived, boosted furthered by the fact that the game was way more regional in general while TV games were far and few between.

Saying they were more honest just goes towards telling me you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[dnemchik]

Nevermind that calling the old polls honest is a crock of shit. They were often times extremely biased towards the east and west coast where the majority of writers lived, boosted furthered by the fact that the game was way more regional in general while TV games were far and few between.

Saying they were more honest just goes towards telling me you have no idea what you are talking about.

"you have no idea what you are talking about"
Go back and reread what you think youre quoting. Then show quotations that have my actual words that say, "they (the old polls) were more honest"

Go ahead ! Reread
See what I actually said

I have no idea what Im talking about ? You make up statements based on misquoting

I said the old setup.... setup was more honest. I dont think old polls are any different than new polls. All polls are opinion and they conflict with each other every single year. But the old setup (preBCS/pre-alliance/pre-coalition) never attempted to matchup the teams that were ranked 1 & 2. It wasnt focused around pretending to know who was 1 & 2 & put them together for a makebelieve championship. You had bowl picks and games and then everybody went back to school after the bowls. The polls came out with final rankings that claimed championships that were never played but the game itself didnt have a championship and didnt claim to have one. It was an honest setup

"often times extremely biased towards the east and west coast where the majority of writers lived"
It doesnt matter because it was accepted as AP opinion or UPI opinion or some other opinion and none of them had any basis on determining if the Pac champ was going to play the Big10 champ or any other matchup. None of the poll opinions ever mattered until the BCS came along and made their poll the basis for deciding its 1 vs 2 matchup. Thats when the pretend fantasy championship began

This isn't the NFL where teams can lose many games and make the playoffs.

At least the NFL champion is decided on the field, not inside the heads of some "extremely biased... majority of writers"

You mite not like the NFL playoffs but the NFL decides their champ on the field

You make no sense. You claim a system that rarely even pitted #1 vs #2 at the end of the year as being honest and better than the current BCS system which does. While at the same time claiming only a playoff can decide a true champion.

Yes the system that rarely pitted 1 vs 2 was honest. It was what it was and didnt make any fantasy claims like the BCS does

I think that old setup sucked but it was honest

The BCS sucks at producing a legit champ and it cherry picks its dreamed up #1 and #2. Its not honest, its fantasy

"claiming only a playoff can decide a true champion"
YES absolutely true !!!

 

[The Crimson King]

I don't favor a playoff at all really. I'd just like to see a game or 2 added as needed, which isn't every year.

Anyone who thinks the National Championship isn't decided on the field is just plain wrong. Case in point is Alabama and Auburn. If Alabama wins on the field, they are in that game. Auburn won and now they are in that game(provided both beat Missouri anyway, had Missouri beat Auburn they would have been in the game).

If Michigan St beats Notre Dame, they are in. If Baylor went undefeated, they are in.

So I don't know where people such as yourself get this notion that it's decided on paper.

I don't like playoffs either......just need a real +1

 

[4down20]

"you have no idea what you are talking about"
Go back and reread what you think youre quoting. Then show quotations that have my actual words that say, "they (the old polls) were more honest"

Go ahead ! Reread
See what I actually said

I have no idea what Im talking about ? You make up statements based on misquoting

I said the old setup.... setup was more honest. I dont think old polls are any different than new polls. All polls are opinion and they conflict with each other every single year. But the old setup (preBCS/pre-alliance/pre-coalition) never attempted to matchup the teams that were ranked 1 & 2. It wasnt focused around pretending to know who was 1 & 2 & put them together for a makebelieve championship. You had bowl picks and games and then everybody went back to school after the bowls. The polls came out with final rankings that claimed championships that were never played but the game itself didnt have a championship and didnt claim to have one. It was an honest setup

"often times extremely biased towards the east and west coast where the majority of writers lived"
It doesnt matter because it was accepted as AP opinion or UPI opinion or some other opinion and none of them had any basis on determining if the Pac champ was going to play the Big10 champ or any other matchup. None of the poll opinions ever mattered until the BCS came along and made their poll the basis for deciding its 1 vs 2 matchup. Thats when the pretend fantasy championship beganAt least the NFL champion is decided on the field, not inside the heads of some "extremely biased... majority of writers"

You mite not like the NFL playoffs but the NFL decides their champ on the fieldYes the system that rarely pitted 1 vs 2 was honest. It was what it was and didnt make any fantasy claims like the BCS does

I think that old setup sucked but it was honest

The BCS sucks at producing a legit champ and it cherry picks its dreamed up #1 and #2. Its not honest, its fantasy

"claiming only a playoff can decide a true champion"
YES absolutely true !!!

Do you even know how the BCS works?

The old polls are the same polls that decide the 2 teams that play in the National Championship. The only difference is #1 and #2 play each other rather than #1 playing #7 and #2 playing #5 or whatever because of bowl tie-ins.

Again, you make no sense.

Guess it's to be expected from someone who has Green Bay and Vikings listed as their favorite teams.

 

[The Crimson King]

Do you even know how the BCS works?

The old polls are the same polls that decide the 2 teams that play in the National Championship. The only difference is #1 and #2 play each other rather than #1 playing #7 and #2 playing #5 or whatever because of bowl tie-ins.

Again, you make no sense.

Guess it's to be expected from someone who has Green Bay and Vikings listed as their favorite teams.

denim chick is not a real person

 

[dnemchik]

Do you even know how the BCS works?

The old polls are the same polls that decide the 2 teams that play in the National Championship. The only difference is #1 and #2 play each other rather than #1 playing #7 and #2 playing #5 or whatever because of bowl tie-ins.

Again, you make no sense.

Do you even know how the BCS works ? Is there anything youve said that would lead a person to believe that you know how the BCS works ?

Guess it's to be expected from someone who has Green Bay and Vikings listed as their favorite teams.

Attempt at the cheap shot failed has shown that you cant put together logical points that are worth considering