- 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: College Football Playoff using top 4 Conference winners: BCS era
Posted on 12/16/13 at 11:48 pm to Kcoyote
Posted on 12/16/13 at 11:48 pm to Kcoyote
quote:
In their mind it would have been set just the top 4 teams from the BCS, not a shady conference selection committee that uses the Geico Ford DodgeRam Allstate Tostitos Championship Drive® to determine the top 4.
I guess we will see, but I have not reason to believe that the committee will be much different than that top 4 anyway.
Frankly this year with FSU and Auburn in I'd have no problem what so ever with any 2 out of Bama, MSU, Baylor and Stanford making it in. The only arguments you have Bama over Baylor say are purely subjective opinion.
2
Posted on 12/16/13 at 11:54 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
I guess we will see, but I have not reason to believe that the committee will be much different than that top 4 anyway.
There probably is when you read what's been said:
LINK
quote:
The championship game will be managed by the conferences and will not be branded as a bowl game. The presidents also announced the creation of a selection committee that will rank the teams to play in the playoff, "giving all the teams an equal opportunity to participate." The committee will consider win-loss record, strength of schedule, head-to-head results and whether a team is a conference champion.
When you look at those listed criteria that makes it a long shot for an at large who didn't win their conference to make the field.
1) Win/loss records are unlikely to help at large teams that don't win their conference; their W/L records are similar generally (MSU, UCF, Baylor, and Alabama have the same records this year).
2) Strength of schedule won't help teams like Alabama unless they start scheduling more aggressively out of conference. Note they have one win against a team in teh top 20 of the BCS in LSU whereas conference champs like Baylor, MSU, and Stanford may have better quality wins on their schedules (again, I refer you to the BCS rankings of teams like OU, tOSU, Oregon, ASU, and UCLA compared to Bama's best team beaten in LSU)
3) Head to head results - another way of saying win your conference. If you lost those games against teams you should have beaten to win your conference you are going to have an uphill battle to an at large berth.
4) Winning your conference - By definition this will not favor at large bids.
Posted on 12/16/13 at 11:57 pm to H-Town Tiger
In this year's case that is very true. I say Baylor, MSU over Alabama.
However, in 2011 I would have been VERY upset if the playoff was a 12-0 LSU vs. 11-2 Wisconsin (#10); 11-1 Ok. St vs. 11-1 Stanford.
And that's what will happen with this playoff. Conference winners will be chosen even with two losses over the best team in the country for that year.
However, in 2011 I would have been VERY upset if the playoff was a 12-0 LSU vs. 11-2 Wisconsin (#10); 11-1 Ok. St vs. 11-1 Stanford.
And that's what will happen with this playoff. Conference winners will be chosen even with two losses over the best team in the country for that year.
Posted on 12/16/13 at 11:58 pm to Kcoyote
Alabama would have gotten in in 2011. The national media was all over them.
This year? Maybe not. But they had their shot against Auburn.
This year? Maybe not. But they had their shot against Auburn.
Posted on 12/17/13 at 12:10 am to molsusports
quote:
When you look at those listed criteria that makes it a long shot for an at large who didn't win their conference to make the field
those criteria are just guidelines, not mandates and frankly I have no problem with them. If you want to give the nod to Baylor because Baylor won their conference, and Bama didn't I don't see why that would be a problem. BCS supporters want the regular season to matter, so who would making Auburn play Bama twice in 3 games not diminish the regular season? Keep in mind that Auburn had to play an extra game, which had they lost would have knocked them out, while Bama sits at home and gets in? How is that fair?
What the committee can do is put teams like 2003 OU, 1998 KState or 2001 Tenn in despite those teams being upset in CCG.
Posted on 12/17/13 at 12:12 am to Kcoyote
quote:
However, in 2011 I would have been VERY upset if the playoff was a 12-0 LSU vs. 11-2 Wisconsin (#10); 11-1 Ok. St vs. 11-1 Stanford.
Boise was ranked higher and also a conference champ that year - I'd think they make it instead of Wisconsin.
I'd assume the committee would choose Oregon over Stanford since Oregon won the PAC but I'm not sure. There would be room for debate between Oregon, Stanford, and Bama IMO. Stanford was an extremely good team FWIW but lost heads up to Oregon. Bama was an exceptional team but lost heads up to another entrant (LSU) on their home field late in the year. Oregon was an exceptional team, but lost their opener to LSU and lost a close game to Southern Cal.
I'd think LSU, Ok State, and probably Boise would be clear entrants with the new system but I'm not absolutely clear on whether the committee would follow their requirement to admit a conference champ in Oregon when they have one more loss than an at large team that was very highly esteemed.
They really have to make more explicit their criteria if they don't want to receive letter bombs from a host of angry fans every year.
Posted on 12/17/13 at 12:13 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:
When you look at those listed criteria that makes it a long shot for an at large who didn't win their conference to make the field
those criteria are just guidelines, not mandates and frankly I have no problem with them.
I don't have a problem with them either. What they need to do is be clear more than anything. If they want to have a system, have a system that people understand.
Posted on 12/17/13 at 12:16 am to Kcoyote
quote:
However, in 2011 I would have been VERY upset if the playoff was a 12-0 LSU vs. 11-2 Wisconsin (#10); 11-1 Ok. St vs. 11-1 Stanford.
And that's what will happen with this playoff. Conference winners will be chosen even with two losses over the best team in the country for that year
actually it would be 13-0 LSU v 11-2 Wisky and 11-1 OK State v 11-2 Oregon, using conference winners. Stanford didn't win their conference either, clearly Bama would have gone over Stanford.
Personally I think Bama would have been in that year given that the 4th best conference winner Wisconsin was ranked so much lower and Oregon who won their conference also lost to LSU but by a much bigger margin and the LSU-Bama game was a virtual draw.
Posted on 12/17/13 at 12:16 am to RLDSC FAN
quote:
2002...
The one team that no one talks about much during the Pete Carroll era, but one of his best teams. When the light finally came on for Carson Palmer that team just took off. They were rolling at the end of the year.
That was a really good team and if you used the BCS standings as your guideline you'd invite them to a four team playoff.
It is worth pointing out however that they were not the PAC 10 Champion in 2002. They lost heads up to a Washington State team that was also an excellent team and was also 7-1 in PAC 10 play.
Posted on 12/17/13 at 12:20 am to molsusports
quote:
Boise was ranked higher and also a conference champ that year - I'd think they make it instead of Wisconsin.
Bosie was 2nd in the MWC, they lost to TCU who was 7-0 in conference. Now if BSU had won that game they would have been 12-0 and certainly in with LSU and Ok State. So it comes down to Oregon, Stanford and Alabama. Oregon beat Stanford and won Pac 12 so I think SU is out. Does Oregon winning their conference out weigh the fact both had a common opponent in LSU which Bama played tougher and that Bama had a better record? I would think no, Bama goes over the Ducks.
quote:
It is worth pointing out however that they were not the PAC 10 Champion in 2002. They lost heads up to a Washington State team that was also an excellent team and was also 7-1 in PAC 10 play.
I covered that on page 1. Iowa was also 8-0 in the B1G that year and did not play OSU so legit Co-Champs
This post was edited on 12/17/13 at 12:23 am
Posted on 12/17/13 at 12:25 am to molsusports
quote:
I don't have a problem with them either. What they need to do is be clear more than anything. If they want to have a system, have a system that people understand.
I think its a clear as can be with out saying they will simply take the top 4 or only conference winners. When anything is unsure, there will be some angst. I like the committee because it can be flexible (example I used, taking #5 Oregon over #4 Stanford in 2011 or #5 Stanford over #4 Oregon in 2012. Stuff like that. Until they do something really outrageous, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. If the playoff this year was FSU-Baylor, Auburn-MSU, who besides Bama fans could really complain?
Posted on 12/17/13 at 12:30 am to molsusports
quote:
It is worth pointing out however that they were not the PAC 10 Champion in 2002. They lost heads up to a Washington State team that was also an excellent team and was also 7-1 in PAC 10 play.
At Wazzu, in overtime.
Under the BCS, that's worthy of a rematch!
It was so Bama-like...
USC's kicker missed his FG in OT and also missed an Extra-point in regulation which would have won the game for USC.
Posted on 12/17/13 at 12:33 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:
I think its a clear as can be with out saying they will simply take the top 4 or only conference winners.
that's the opposite of clear. That's saying you could do one thing with one rationale or you could do something else with an entirely different rationale.
one approach values the BCS formula and the other treats conferences as divisions from which teams qualify for the playoff.
Posted on 12/17/13 at 12:35 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:
I'd really rather 16 where all 11 conference winners get auto bids and 5 at large
I could adapt - and I think we'd all get used to it after much moaning about the regular season being diminished.
The reason I'd be open to this - is because of my strong belief that the regular season SHOULD matter...meaning...winning conferences should mean something again...accomplishments on the field - instead of this constant subjective eyeball test.
Every conference champ should get a shot - get a seat at the table...that makes the regular season really mean something again...and then you can throw in your Bama's and Notre Dame's and Oklahoma's - at-large who for whatever reason (tough conference, no conference, big game floppers) didn't win their conference.
Conferences need to be like divisions in the NFL - to have relevance anymore beyond some amorphous regional pride nonsense.
This post was edited on 12/17/13 at 12:36 am
Posted on 12/17/13 at 12:50 am to molsusports
quote:
that's the opposite of clear. That's saying you could do one thing with one rationale or you could do something else with an entirely different rationale.
I would argue its being flexible and leaving some leeway without painting them in a corner with some fixed criteria. Personally I'm fine with and even prefer just taking the top 4 conference winners. As I detailed on page 1 only 2 years, 2003 and 2011 is there any real controversy. However, I'm also ok with the idea of the committee pending what they actually do. I don't think it will be radically different however, than just taking the top 4 or top 4 conference winners. Only SEC-o-files and Bama fans would be upset if Baylor was picked over Bama this year and only Big 12 fans and Baylor would really gripe if it was Bama over BU. While not everyone would be happy, hardly anyone would be unhappy if you get my drift.
This post was edited on 12/17/13 at 12:54 am
Posted on 12/17/13 at 12:53 am to Zamoro10
quote:
Zamoro10
That pretty much sums up why I'm good with that format. I think 4 is better, but if you insist on expansion, just go all the way. Making winning your conference meaningful, give all D1 teams a shot .
Posted on 12/17/13 at 12:57 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:
that's the opposite of clear. That's saying you could do one thing with one rationale or you could do something else with an entirely different rationale.
I would argue its being flexible and leaving some leeway without painting them in a corner with some fixed criteria
my head is going to explode
Flexibility is for gymnasts. Standards and objective criteria are for things that matter.
You are in favor of moving the goalposts depending on subjective criteria from year to year? What a giant crock of camel dung.
Posted on 12/17/13 at 1:06 am to H-Town Tiger
Yeah, I'm just done with taking CFB titles seriously...when we make massive subjective judgments and then exclude others with such apparent certainty.
At least in the old poll system...the national champion wasn't decided before the bowls with this designated national champ game.
All the bowls mattered because you could climb from #5 to #1...based on what happened. I think Miami and Bama both did this once.
Now, we exclude the importance of all the bowls...and say...only this bowl matters and we decided the winner of this is the champ. So...the champ is decided before all these great matchups of ranked teams in bowl games (and yes, before the BCS - there used to be great matchups in all the other bowls.)
When the media almost decided to exclude everyone in 2006 because they decided that the Big 10 and Ohio State and Michigan were the best...and no one else mattered...that was ridiculous.
When they did it again in 2011...with the SEC and Bama and LSU to the exclusion of other conference champs...
Well...that's just nonsense. We can all have an idea who is the best but nobody knows...that's why they play the game...otherwise, Bama beats Auburn two weeks ago...because eyeball test and on paper says so.
CFB is turning a lot of people off. You eventually need to include the whole country to keep interest...all conference champs...especially the so-called big 6.
It would be nice if we got to a Big 4...I'd be happy with that. Getting rid of at-larges might actually be a nice thing - to finally kill the eyeball test.
Really? You're the best? Well, sorry - you shouldn't have lost the game.
At least in the old poll system...the national champion wasn't decided before the bowls with this designated national champ game.
All the bowls mattered because you could climb from #5 to #1...based on what happened. I think Miami and Bama both did this once.
Now, we exclude the importance of all the bowls...and say...only this bowl matters and we decided the winner of this is the champ. So...the champ is decided before all these great matchups of ranked teams in bowl games (and yes, before the BCS - there used to be great matchups in all the other bowls.)
When the media almost decided to exclude everyone in 2006 because they decided that the Big 10 and Ohio State and Michigan were the best...and no one else mattered...that was ridiculous.
When they did it again in 2011...with the SEC and Bama and LSU to the exclusion of other conference champs...
Well...that's just nonsense. We can all have an idea who is the best but nobody knows...that's why they play the game...otherwise, Bama beats Auburn two weeks ago...because eyeball test and on paper says so.
CFB is turning a lot of people off. You eventually need to include the whole country to keep interest...all conference champs...especially the so-called big 6.
It would be nice if we got to a Big 4...I'd be happy with that. Getting rid of at-larges might actually be a nice thing - to finally kill the eyeball test.
Really? You're the best? Well, sorry - you shouldn't have lost the game.
Posted on 12/17/13 at 1:27 am to Bench McElroy
quote:
1998- Ohio State 1999- Florida State 2000- Miami 2001- Miami 2002- USC 2003- USC 2004- USC 2005- Texas 2006- USC 2007- LSU 2008- Florida 2009- Alabama 2010- Auburn 2011- Alabama 2012- Alabama 2013- Alabama
Holy shite is this a clown list. You have a few right, but boy are you terribly wrong on a few.
Posted on 12/17/13 at 1:31 am to Bench McElroy
quote:
No. Bama would have crushed everybody in 2012.
So you forget that LSU was less than a minute from winning? Or you forget that Georgia was as well? Or you forget that A&M beat them? Holy frick you Bama ball washers never cease to amaze. You think Bama "crushes" everybody because they beat Not Dam?
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News