Subjective math? Is that a thing?Originally Posted by ram29jackson
exactly why playoffs are needed though. Thats a bunch of subjective new math bullpucky
Anyway, I still say that playoffs don't really tell you who truly is the best is.
Subjective math? Is that a thing?exactly why playoffs are needed though. Thats a bunch of subjective new math bullpucky
Anyway, I still say that playoffs don't really tell you who truly is the best is.
A full fledged 16 team playoff would. You'll occasionally have a New York Giants moment (team gets hot at the right time and rattles off the wins necessary to win it all) but, more often than the bullshit system they have right now, it would result in a true National Champion for the sport.
I don't believe any playoff system, no matter how many teams, will tell you who the true champ is. Playoff brackets only determine who can be the first to beat/win 3 or 4 games/series.
Take the NCAA basketball tournament. You're telling me that of the "best" 68 teams, the champ only has to beat 6 of them? Yeah, THAT proves who's the best.
How many times have you seen the best team in college basketball not, at the very least, be in the Final 4 to win it all? I'd venture to guess it's close to never. If the team really is great and worthy of winning a National Championship, they'll be in place to win that championship.
Do you really think what we have now is better than that? I just can't possibly see how that is the case.
and youre confused by my subjective math joke ?
dude, single elimination is just that, single elimination. You beat who you play or go home. You would rather have...Mr. fat ass in khaki's picked that team because his computer ratings and a little funny money told him to ? Or a playoff where you beat the team in front of you who is at least rated somewhat near what you are ?
I don't believe the current system is necessarily the best but when someone squeks into the playoffs, then wins the thing, does that prove that team is the best, especially when they didn't have to play at least 1/2 the field? One and dones are also the worst because anyone can have a "Little Giants" moment and win a game. In a one and done situation, the 2001 NBA champs would be the Philadelphia 76'ers and not the Lakers who wound up winning the next 4 games and went, like 15-1 in that playoff run or something like that. Whatever year George Mason went to the Final Four, you'll have a hard time convincing me that they were, at worst, the 4th best team in the country.
If 8-4 Rutgers beats 13-0 Alabama in a playoff game, are we really gonna say that Rutgers is better then Alabama or that they played a good game and they got lucky? Even last year in LSU/Bama I, Alabama was the better team but LSU caught all the breaks and won but when LSU/Bama II came around, Bama (the team that didn't win their conference or division) showed they they were clearly the better team.
Only because math, by nature, isn't subjective.
sports is based on time clocks ( for the most part) instantaneous moments. If you didnt have the larger score by the final buzzer ( or final out LOL) you are not the better team for that moment in time and that is all that matters. Thats the point of a playoff. You are still basing your ideas on subjective opinionated rankings by saying "we all know so and so was/is better "
if Rutgers beats LSU in one game thats tough shit for LSU. It means Rutgers was better for that game and thats all that matters in sports.
You are only as good as your last game.
then again, that BCS math seems a little funky at times
Last edited by ram29jackson; 06-14-2012 at 04:48 PM.
Look, I'm not crazy. I fully realize that games aren't played on paper and "that's why you play the games" and all that. I'm just saying, it's not like questions and doubts won't exist because all of a sudden just because their's a playoff.sports is based on time clocks ( for the most part) instantaneous moments. If you didnt have the larger score by the final buzzer ( or final out LOL) you are not the better team for that moment in time and that is all that matters. Thats the point of a playoff. You are still basing your ideas on subjective opinionated rankings by saying "we all know so and so was/is better "
if Rutgers beats LSU in one game thats tough shit for LSU
You are only as good as your last game.
(I don't follow NHL hockey so their may be some inaccuracies in what I'm about to say) Take the LA Kings for example, the 8th best team in the west. Now, their trophy is well deserved because apparently, they beat the top 3 teams in the west to reach the Finals and beat the Devils but are they the best? They didn't get to play the Penguins, the Flyers, the Rangers, the Capitals, etc. they may have avoided every team capable of beating them just because somebody else played them instead.
sports is about "little giants" moments... that is why if you are to be the best, you beat every tom, dick, and harry, bill, joe, and bobby that lines up in front of you... no excuses... no regrets... if Bama lost to Western Kentucky in round 1 of a playoff, who is to blame? they knew it was a playoff... they knew they were collectively better... but still didn't execute...
i don't buy anybody's point of view that a playoff is NOT the way to go with college football... regardless of the made up situation above, how many times do people get into arguments because of late season wins over tougher opponents that help their team jump in the BCS polls... SAME LOGIC... if you are expected to win, you should win, if not, you go home
the best way i can think of to do a college football tournament would be to have 16 teams play... all drawn at random live... then the 8 teams standing that saturday night get tossed into another drawing to play at random... then 4... and then champion... so long as you make the cut of 16, your future is entirely in your hands... this would really show off not only the players, but the coaches, being pressed for time to scout, assemble, and execute... this would be my dream playoff
I'm not against playoffs. I'm just saying playoffs don't "prove" who the best is.
Then why didnt any of them make it that far ? Answer = you are only as good as your last game.
uh oh, I'm seeing e mails now.
My friends are planning for going to the UCLA,Nebraska game on September 8th
They may not be definitive, but they, most definitely, are better than what they trot out there as a Championship game right now. Having two teams play that have already played once in the season again in a single elimination winner takes all game without anyone else having a chance is utter bullshit.
You do know that Baylor, TCU, Kansas State, Oklahoma and West Virginia finished #13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 in the AP poll last year, right? Granted, they weren't all Big 12 schools last year, and so they will take each other out to an extent this year, but they're certainly got the talent to have five in the Top 20.so let me get this straight....? TCU is predicted to finish 5th in their own conference, but ranked 22 in the nation L O freaking L
a little bit a Big 12 bias there
If playoffs don't, nothing else does either. The BCS certainly doesn't (which, BTW, is a 2-team playoff). Split National Championships certainly doesn't. It's the end-all-be-all, but it's progress in the right direction.
If Gordon Hayward had hit that last second shot and Butler had defeated Duke, would anyone dispute that they won the national championship? If VCU had completed their improbable run and won the championship, would anyone have disputed it? March Madness has the same problems with hot teams or teams that barely get in that a college football playoff does, but because the playoffs have been around longer, people are okay with it.
Hell, the Kings were an 8 seed and did about as well in the Stanley Cup playoffs as any team can do ... they may not have been the best team all year, but they're Stanley Cup Champions.
But ... they're Stanley Cup Champions. So .... Since the NHL Lockout ended, no #1 seed in the East has even reached the Finals, so being the "best" team all year has done jack lot of good.
Twitter: @3YardsandACloud
You guys gotta see who clemson got
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtJ5iNzV_zk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvwEjkc97cY
yes,but what difference does it make since its all based on a fictional criteria ?You do know that Baylor, TCU, Kansas State, Oklahoma and West Virginia finished #13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 in the AP poll last year, right? Granted, they weren't all Big 12 schools last year, and so they will take each other out to an extent this year, but they're certainly got the talent to have five in the Top 20.
wat?
Twitter: @3YardsandACloud
My thoughts exactly.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks