The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Another field goal filled affair.  I'm sure Sparano would've done some fist pumps had he been the Alabama coach. 

As for LSU, what can I say?  Under 100 yards of total offense, only crossed midfield once, and I can count their first downs on one hand.  You have to wonder why they didn't replace Jefferson earlier in the game.  He looked so scared out there.  I've seen that look before when I hit a deer.

The Mad Hatter really blew it last night. Lee should have been in that game before halftime.

Please fix college football.  :'(

I hate Nick Saban.  The world would be better off if he got Hep C. >:D

+1

I could not have been more uninterested to watch last night's BCS game.  Until there is some kind of playoff system (hell, a plus one format would help), I just can't see myself caring about a sport that refuses to have a true national championship.

Off topic but I thougt that I would add.....

Burn in Hell $aban!!!!!  ;D

Just so I'm in the loop ... you guys aren't suggesting that a playoff system would have created a better game do you? I mean, many Super Bowls have sucked butt on the field.

^ A playoff would be better, because every title game wouldn't end with "Yes, but..."

The Super Bowl Champion is the champ.  That's all there is to it and everyone accepts it.  Nobody thinks that the Pats were the champs the year that the Giants beat them.  It didn't matter that the Pats had only one loss that year, it didn't matter that the Giants might've had an easier schedule, and it doesn't matter that the Pats were probably the better team.

While in college, you can make a case that Alabama shouldn't have even been in the game, that LSU beat them on their home turf and deserves to split, or that a team that didn't even play in the game should get a piece of that pie.

I agree with you Dave. I have heard people say "The game sucked. If team x would have been there then it would have been a better game." I was asking because I think it's obvious no matter who plays there is no guarantee of a good game. Apparently some people don't feel that way.

True.  You can never tell which team will show up on a given day.  But in a playoff system, you only blame the teams involved, not the committee that chose which teams would play.

Also the separation from Alabama and OK St to see who would go to the NC game came down to a single voter who ranked OK St out of the top 5.
Alabama did not belong in that game, OK St did.

Well said. 

Under the BCS NE would be the champs in 2007 but not 2001. 

A game not a comittee decided that NE instead of the Dolphins would play the Bears for the '85 Championship.  (although Miami was probably the best team in the AFC that year, by a large margin)

This could all be solved by adding just one more game.  #1 and #4 play, #2 and #3 play, winners play each other for the title.  Hell, it would be one more bowl game...more money for them.

^^^I could see having a (4) team playoff, but that is not going to end the bickering, it would only move to the #5 and #6 teams saying they should be in the top four.  Look at NCAA Basketball, 64 teams aren't enough anymore, teams still cry they should be in.

On another note the argument that they already played once is a bunch of BS crying.  If there was a playoff they probably would have to play again.  Heck in the NFL you may have to beat the same team three times before you even make it to the SB.

Good analogy there, Hoodie.  Only thing is, you have to realize that the BCS determines who plays for the national championship, but not the actual winner.  That being said, New England would be in the Super Bowl in 2007 if the BCS system were used in the NFL, but they would've faced Dallas or Green Bay, not the Giants.  The Dolphins and Bears would've been in the Super Bowl in 1985.  The Chargers would be in the Super Bowl in 2006 and 2009 if the BCS were used.  Also, the Colts would've been in a lot more Super Bowls than they have.

I guess technically we could say it was a single vote that did it since it was the closest finish between 2 & 3 since the BCS began, but it really isn't accurate. According to what I have seen, three Harris voters ranked OSU sixth.

http://espn.go.com/espn/commentary/story/_/id/7330561/mike-gundy-lobbied-harder-oklahoma-state-bcs-title-shot

Big difference. 

Teams do cry that they should be in the tournement.  But not a single one can seriously make the claim that they would have won it all had they been let in and were wrongfully denied a shot at the championship. 

They can claim they were better than some of the 15 and 16 seeds that got in, they can't make a case (that anyone would buy) that they were better than the team that won it all.

There are probably 3-5 teams each year in college football that could be considered the best team in college football.  A four team playoff would solve the problem most years.  An 8 team one would solve it every year.  Yes, some teams would bitch they were better than #8, but no one could take them serious if they claimed they should have had a shot at #1.

Arguing about who should have the 4th spot is a helluva lot better than arguing about who should have the 2nd spot. Arguing 8th spot is better than arguing 4th and so on.  Fixing this idiotic *system* is slower than a one-armed paper hanger. +1 is just the next step that has to be taken. I would love 16 but I'll be happy with 8.


The difference is in the NFL it's all determined on the field, that's the key. In the NCAA the idiotic *system* is directly resposible for the "BS crying" of people trying to infulence other people to vote them in.

Like someone earlier said, you don't have any of this moronic shit in the NFL because it gets taken care of on the field.

This.

In the NCAA tournament, teams bicker because they're losing exposure.  Some team will always get shafted, but not a team that was going to win it all.  The same with football.  Even with 4 teams, it takes away the chance that a legitimate #1 team got hosed.  And if it started at 4, there'd be money and reason to expand it to 8, then 16, then who knows...

Logically this makes sense, but just look at the NFL playoffs, there are upsets by wildcard teams, and on occasion they are in the Super Bowl.  Once, a #4 seed wins then there is the argument to expand to 8, and so on.  Then a 7 or 8 would eventually win and there would be more conjecture.  There is too much money in college bowl slush funds to switch to divisions like the NFL.


The purpose of the BCS was to atleast have the top two teams play each other, and people still aren't happy.  I'd be okay with a four team playoff, but it won't end the debate.

True.  But has an undefeated NFL team ever not been in the superbowl?  Undefeated college teams have not had a chance at the #1 title.  That is patentenly unfair.  No a playoff system won't completely solve the problem.  But there won't be any teams without a loss that is not the champion.

Not necessarily true, but I still agree with the concept of and 1. I heard the other day that 2 teams recently went undefeated, but finished out of the top 4.  I'm pretty sure those teams must have played pretty weak schedules though, so I don't think there would have been a whole lot of noise they should have had a shot at the championship anyway.

The 1972 dolphins played the weakest schedule of any NFL team to ever make the playoffs in the history of the NFL.  They got a shot at the championship, anyway.

The NFL and pretty much every other sport as a decent (even if not perfect) system of determining the champion.  The BCS is the odd man out.   

But they were still considered a championship caliber team going into the playoffs. My point is that with the "and 1" system it would still be possible to be undefeated and not got a shot at the championship, just not as likely as it is today.

Not really.  They were the underdog in the playoffs. 

If we had BCS style voting in the NFL instead of playoffs in 1972,  the championship game would be Steelers (or maybe Raiders) vs. Redskins with the the undefeated Dolphins sitting home on the basis that they had such a weak schedule they were not really considered that good and were expected to go one and done.

That is how stupid the BCS is. 

I was young and not really a fan of the Dolphins then so I'll take your word for it.

This we agree on.

I still hope Saban gets the HIV.

Someone- Hoodie I think- mentioned that a playoff would fix the issue of an undefeated team not having a shot at the title. What do you do when you have a team finish outside of the top 4, but still go undefeated? It happens more than people might think. 11 times since the current system has been in place, undefeated teams have been out of the top 4 and not had that chance. Having a playoff wouldn't help those teams, unless you start adding even MORE teams to the schedule. When would it end? -EK