College football postseason is a joke

[EvilVodka]

Hell, the Sugar Bowl should be Boise State vs. Kansas State...but that match-up obviously isn't sexy enough...

you know, you can't just go by the polls when it suits you and then disregard them when it doesn't...

The college football postseason is such a ridiculous joke, its unbelievable...

Virginia Tech basically backed into the Sugar Bowl, which is even worse than Alabama getting into the NC game IMO...

You've got Boise State and K-State sittin in the top 10, why did they not go??

The popularity contest, and how it overrides actually "on-the-field" results is mind-numbing...

No way VT deserves to be in the Sugar Bowl...ugh

====================================

I posted the above post on another thread, but I thought I'd continue with a new thread....

The glaring problem with this system, and this year has proven a shining example of this, is that popularity overrides "on-the-field" results...

you can't have it both ways...you can't say, let's use the polls to determine anything, and then override them based on popularity, tv ratings, etc. Yet we just saw Alabama get into the title game without doing a damn thing this weekend. Everyone thinks they're studly, they've got the look of a National Championship team, despite only 2 good wins.

Virginia Tech backing into the Sugar Bowl is laughable, and Michigan in the BCS is a joke too

We use the popularity polls (thats what they are, give me a break) to choose the National Championship, but then disregard them when they don't jive with who the BCS bowl wants to invite...

I'm so numbed out with this system, its incredible...I wish teams would just start boycotting bowls...seriously, why bother playing bowl games that just disenfranchise the entire regular season

 

[Forty_Sixand2]

I am going to let Chris Coleman speak on this:

"Baylor and Oklahoma? They each have three losses, and nobody is going to watch Baylor anyway. The only real option is Kansas State. The Wildcats lost to Oklahoma 58-17, and to Oklahoma State 52-45. They allowed 50 points to Texas A&M. Their resume isn't particularly impressive.

And besides, there's one reason why Virginia Tech has the same number of losses as Kansas State. The Hokies played for their conference championship. They had a chance to lose an extra game, and KSU didn't. Had Kansas State played for the Big 12 Championship (the Big 12 doesn't have a championship game anymore), it likely would have been a third loss for the Wildcats, which would have basically eliminated them from at-large contention anyway.

Simply put, there just wasn't a better option than Virginia Tech when you put together all the criteria: national rank, wins, traveling fan base, TV ratings, etc. I'm not saying the Kansas State fans shouldn't be upset, but when it comes down to it, Virginia Tech is simply the better option for the Sugar Bowl."

 

[Forty_Sixand2]

You cannot complain about Alabama being in the title game because they got a week off and also bash Virginia tech for getting an at large bid because they lost in one of those pesky CCGs without looking like a total hypocrite. Either the CCGs count, or they don't.

 

[EvilVodka]

"...The only real option is Kansas State. The Wildcats lost to Oklahoma 58-17, and to Oklahoma State 52-45. They allowed 50 points to Texas A&M. Their resume isn't particularly impressive.

...And yet they are ranked higher than you...are we going by polls or resumes? Because for Alabama, the poll/eyeball test/opinion part won out over the resume argument...yet, with VT, they've got a better resume?

"And besides, there's one reason why Virginia Tech has the same number of losses as Kansas State. The Hokies played for their conference championship. They had a chance to lose an extra game, and KSU didn't. Had Kansas State played for the Big 12 Championship (the Big 12 doesn't have a championship game anymore), it likely would have been a third loss for the Wildcats, which would have basically eliminated them from at-large contention anyway."

Well, the flip side of that is that you're rewarding VT for losing their championship game...A regular season loss is getting rewarded. And if Kansas State is so bad, what's wrong with Boise State? #7 in the BCS

Simply put, there just wasn't a better option than Virginia Tech when you put together all the criteria: national rank, wins, traveling fan base, TV ratings, etc. I'm not saying the Kansas State fans shouldn't be upset, but when it comes down to it, Virginia Tech is simply the better option for the Sugar Bowl."

Traveling fan base
TV ratings

None of that should be involved in any of the criteria...sickening

The competitive aspect of college football has really taken a backseat this season to popularity contests and $$$

 

[EvilVodka]

You cannot complain about Alabama being in the title game because they got a week off and also bash Virginia tech for getting an at large bid because they lost in one of those pesky CCGs without looking like a total hypocrite. Either the CCGs count, or they don't.

Well, the popular idea with most sports is to win the games...winning, duh!!!

You didn't win your conference, neither did Alabama

Its just time to scrap this shit, seriously

Let's just have a 16 team playoff and get on with it...that way, conference championships actually mean something, and the regular season won't be a joke that it is now

 

[Forty_Sixand2]

If Virginia Tech was 11-1 and had not won their division and the right to play in a CCG, their would be zero argument between them and Kansas State.

 

[EvilVodka]

If Virginia Tech was 11-1 and had not won their division and the right to play in a CCG, their would be zero argument between them and Kansas State.

Hey, take it from Bama fans, its waaaaaaaay easier to just skip division and conference titles

 

[mysfit]

If Virginia Tech was 11-1 and had not won their division and the right to play in a CCG, their would be zero argument between them and Kansas State.

depends on where they are ranked

If KState is 8 and Vtech 11 then yes there WOULD be an argument, and a good one.

 

[amszete]

Maybe this should be its own thread, but I think the pre-season rankings need to be scraped until the week the BCS standings come out. Seriously, why have them? What do they really accomplish with the exception of hyping up teams who are potentially undeserving?

 

[uncfan103]

Maybe this should be its own thread, but I think the pre-season rankings need to be scraped until the week the BCS standings come out. Seriously, why have them? What do they really accomplish with the exception of hyping up teams who are potentially undeserving?

I agree.

 

[mysfit]

Maybe this should be its own thread, but I think the pre-season rankings need to be scraped until the week the BCS standings come out. Seriously, why have them? What do they really accomplish with the exception of hyping up teams who are potentially undeserving?

I've been saying this for years.