- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Espn: Sizing up the SEC resumes
Posted on 12/16/13 at 7:41 pm to AlwysATgr
Posted on 12/16/13 at 7:41 pm to AlwysATgr
Alabama is more entitled because everyone thinks they are better than msu and baylor, and if we are all being honest we know they are a better team than baylor or msu. Talk about quality wins all you like..msu lost to notre dame and basically chugged along playing a bunch of nobodies all year..their hallmark win is against a team nobody wanted in the championship because they(osu) hadnt beat a top team in myers tenure. Baylors 1 loss woule look 10x better coming out of the sec than the big 12. There is no way Bama would be sitting at home at the expense of either of those teams. No way in hell.
1
Posted on 12/16/13 at 9:16 pm to MattLSU
The current BCS formula is still king IMHO. It removes all observer bias that will be the norm for the committee deciding the teams in the new format. You think the new committee will allow the SEC to win 6 straight national champion ships? Will they ever allow an all SEC championship? Doubt it.
Posted on 12/16/13 at 9:49 pm to MattLSU
Ole Miss
Posted on 12/17/13 at 7:09 am to EZE Tiger Fan
your democratic rights start with free speach and à day's pay for a days work !
Posted on 12/17/13 at 8:46 am to YellowShoe
quote:
If you unduly pimp or take pride in confederacy, you shouldn't be surprised when others don't reciprocate your passions.
Wtf...?
My point was, hypothetically, if Baylor and MSU switched poll positions and you ended up with Baylor (Texas), FSU (Florida), Auburn and Alabama (Alabama) this year. That's a fairly regional play off.
Then say next year, by some miracle, UF goes undefeated, Mizzou loses only one game to UF, UF beats the SECW in the SECCG, Texas wins the Big 12 and Miami wins the ACC. You could conceivably end up with UT (Texas), Mizzou (Missouri), UF and Miami (Florida) in a 4 team playoff.
How long would the rest of the country maintain interest (ie, turn on TVs and watch the games thereby generating revenue), while only teams from Texas, and the SEC/ACC keep playing for it all?
It doesn't have anything to do with the old confederacy except for geography. The SEC + Texas (throw in the ACC) is the South. If they continued to select teams from this region for the sake of some narrative, they would lose money.
Money drives the narrative, not the other way around. The narrative will be about how Big 10 and Pac 12 champions are so worthy of a chance to play for the NC - whether against a southern team, or against one another.
This post was edited on 12/17/13 at 8:55 am
Posted on 12/17/13 at 8:46 am to MattLSU
Moo State 0-24 vs top25 teams win pct .0000! Hot damn, love that. I live in msu hot bed and I would think by conversation that those cock suckers ran the SEC
Posted on 12/17/13 at 10:33 am to Mulerider
quote:
Bama gets a mulligan consistently because they consistently put themselves in position to receive one
This statement is so awesome in so many ways, I really don't know where to begin.
The kool aid must be good.
So Bama consistently puts themselves in position for Mulligans, why?
Answer: BECAUSE THEY LOSE.
Some of you here are clearly not bright individuals, which is exactly the type of fan ESPN caters to.
Posted on 12/17/13 at 11:25 am to munchman
quote:
Why not have an 8 team playoff with conference champions only. That may leave a power conf. like the SEC at a disadvantage, but it would seem more fair in the long term.
Are you serious? We want the 4 best teams. Period.
Posted on 12/17/13 at 12:25 pm to ShaneTheMaster
quote:
Are you serious? We want the 4 best teams. Period.
How do you know who the 4 best teams are?
Posted on 12/17/13 at 12:59 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
How do you know who the 4 best teams are?
My question as well to those who want to match the "best" teams.
Posted on 12/17/13 at 1:05 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
Meh, this season LSU beat two IA teams with winning records (AU and A&M) while I believe Bama beat 4 and Auburn beat 5 including the SECCG.
Better check that again
Posted on 12/17/13 at 1:23 pm to cheapseat
quote:
Better check that again
Are you saying that LSU beat more teams that had winning records in IA than either Auburn or Alabama?
If not, does not matter, point still stands.
If so, just show your work.
Posted on 12/17/13 at 2:25 pm to mikeytig
quote:
The current BCS formula is still king IMHO. It removes all observer bias that will be the norm for the committee deciding the teams in the new format.
You do realize that opinion polls are 66% of the BCS calculation, don't you? Only 33% of the BCS is free of observer bias (though computers have other biases as well). That's why Alabama went in 2011 over Okie State, who the computers preferred slightly.
The only objective measure of national title viability is winning your conference championship. Because there are too many teams and too few ways to get to the national title game (true of the BCS era and the 4-team playoff), observer bias will play a part, unless all FBS conferences get automatic invitations. That can't happen short of a 16-team playoff, and you can bet no one is arguing for the automatic inclusion of the Sun Belt in the national championship tournament over a 1-loss Alabama/LSU/Florida/UGA/aTm/Auburn/Tenn that doesn't win the SEC.
I can see a scenario where an 8-team playoff comes about with automatic bids for the champions of the 5 super-conferences (SEC/ACC/B1G/PAC12/BIGXII) and three at large bids. That allows independents and smaller conference champions in if they are undefeated, but also gives the good teams that just missed out on a conference championship an opportunity to go on a run. While observer bias would still have a say, it would not be the final say and would be well within reason. Yes, there will be arguments about whether say, Bama, Oregon, Ohio State or Okie State this year would be left out, but none could really complain since they didn't win their conference
Under that type of scenario, I don't think anyone could really complain about a rematch, because the loser of the first game had gone through a gauntlet of top teams to get into the NCG. Unlike in 2011, when losing gave Bama an easier road to New Orleans.
GEAUX TIGERS
Posted on 12/17/13 at 2:59 pm to Thorny
quote:
gives the good teams that just missed out on a conference championship an opportunity to go on a run
Why is that so important for teams that didn't win their conference?
So you blew it during the season, but we'll give you a chance to 'go on a run' just 'cause?
That's going to be the Notre Dame/USC/Michigan/OSU/Alabama inclusion clause. "Okay, if you're one of these teams and you did not win your conference we're going to give you another shot just because of your name."
That doesn't make much sense to me.
Posted on 12/17/13 at 3:12 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:come on dude...ever heard the term "eye-test"
That doesn't make much sense to me
Posted on 12/17/13 at 3:29 pm to dante
quote:
come on dude...ever heard the term "eye-test"
That's what I'm afraid of...
Posted on 12/17/13 at 3:30 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
Posted on 12/17/13 at 4:31 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
"gives the good teams that just missed out on a conference championship an opportunity to go on a run"
Why is that so important for teams that didn't win their conference?
So you blew it during the season, but we'll give you a chance to 'go on a run' just 'cause?
That's going to be the Notre Dame/USC/Michigan/OSU/Alabama inclusion clause. "Okay, if you're one of these teams and you did not win your conference we're going to give you another shot just because of your name."
That doesn't make much sense to me.
In principle, I agree with you, only conference champions should have a shot. However, the reality is that there is no way to have a conference-champions-only tournament.
There are only 10 conferences in FBS. So to have a 10 team tournament, the top 6 teams would get a bye, and 7-10 would play each other. OK, that's just like the old SEC hoops tournament, and it wasn't so bad. Then you notice that Notre Dame isn't in a conference, and you and I know that no playoff arrangement can exist without including Notre Dame (complain all you want, but you know it is true). So, to give Notre Dame a chance, you either have to have them take the place of conference champion (but it will probably be the Sun Belt, so who cares, right?) or expand the tournament to 11 teams.
11 teams is an unworkable tournament draw, so that would necessitate a move to 12 just to balance the whole thing and not have a second "play-in" round. Once you are at 12, you are stuck at having wild cards, and as long as wild cards are allowed, the "USC/Michigan/OSU/Alabama inclusion clause" is in effect.
Another solution is to only allow 8 teams, but how do you eliminate 2 conference champions objectively? And some years, you might have to eliminate 3 conference champions because Notre Dame is undefeated. That leads me to the 5 super-conference champions and 3 wild card format mentioned above. Throw in a "undefeated teams have priority" clause and I think you end up with a workable solution that takes care of the occasional 04 Utah and 07 Hawaii. (If you are Boise State, Hawaii or Northern Illinois, you really can't complain about being left out if you are not undefeated.)
My preferred solution is to radically realign into 8 9-team conferences and have only conference champions in the playoff. That would mean that 48 teams would have to go back down to the FCS, but let's not fool ourselves: It's a complete joke to say that LSU and UT-San Antonio are competing for the same national championship.
I would be more than happy to eliminate an Alabama team that lost on that kick return. I just can't figure out how it is done without radical realignment. We all know that won't happen.
GEAUX TIGERS
Posted on 12/17/13 at 4:47 pm to Thorny
It's a committee, it is an eye test. That's exactly what it is. Who the committee thinks are the best 4 teams. They are bound by no formulas, they aren't bound to conference winners, they can use whatever information they choose to choose who they believe are the 4 best football teams in the country.
I don't know where you guys are getting this conference winner stuff, because that is not explicitly part of it, in any way, shape or form. You might believe they'll be partial, or have some preference for conference winners over a non conference winner like Alabama. However, such preferences, or inclinations haven't been explicitly stated, nor have they been part of mission statement set forth by the committee in how they choose the top 4.
I don't know where you guys are getting this conference winner stuff, because that is not explicitly part of it, in any way, shape or form. You might believe they'll be partial, or have some preference for conference winners over a non conference winner like Alabama. However, such preferences, or inclinations haven't been explicitly stated, nor have they been part of mission statement set forth by the committee in how they choose the top 4.
Posted on 12/17/13 at 5:56 pm to SpqrTiger
Of course there will be 2 SEC teams in the playoffs, they will always be 1 and 4 or 2 and 3.
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News