- 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: For or Opossed to BCS playoff?
Posted on 4/29/12 at 8:18 am to Tigah32
Posted on 4/29/12 at 8:18 am to Tigah32
FOR
In a big way.
WHEN,
any system that states that teams are rewarded for the regular season games with bowl games, leads its fans to believe that it exists to match the 2 best teams when, in fact, it says it matches the 2 highest ranked teams. When the mathematical formulas to determine the two highest ranked teams are kept secretive and therefore are at risk of manipulation. When one team beats another team at their house during the regular season only to be "rewarded" with a rematch vs that same team in the champ game just about a month later. Lastly. when the losing team in said championship game has more total wins ,than the winner, on the season in a system that has no playoffs but rewards teams for regular season victories....thats just "F" ed up and broken.
And it looks like "They" at least recognize that.
In a big way.
WHEN,
any system that states that teams are rewarded for the regular season games with bowl games, leads its fans to believe that it exists to match the 2 best teams when, in fact, it says it matches the 2 highest ranked teams. When the mathematical formulas to determine the two highest ranked teams are kept secretive and therefore are at risk of manipulation. When one team beats another team at their house during the regular season only to be "rewarded" with a rematch vs that same team in the champ game just about a month later. Lastly. when the losing team in said championship game has more total wins ,than the winner, on the season in a system that has no playoffs but rewards teams for regular season victories....thats just "F" ed up and broken.
And it looks like "They" at least recognize that.
0
Posted on 4/29/12 at 8:35 am to JPLSU1981
quote:I'm with that, because of other reasons posted, and the fact it would limit the number of teams.
I do believe that a team should have to win its conference to be eligible to win it all, but it appears I am in the minority
Posted on 4/29/12 at 6:08 pm to Mayhawman
quote:I'm using whatever you are using to decide that LSU, Oklahoma State, Oregon and Wisconsin get in and West Virginia and Clemson are left out. If you want to just be arbitrary and say, "these criteria can discern which teams are better if the teams are conference champions, but the formula doesn't work when applied to a team that isn't a conference champion," then so be it. But that's as uselessly arbitrary as any poll, BCS system, or any other terrible solution.
You are using what to determine 2nd best- the poll you'd like to see less of?
If you think the formula is fair enough to distinguish between conference champions, then it should be fair enough to put a non-champion in ahead of teams that didn't fair as well, even if they won their conference. Otherwise, you're just arbitrarily excluding more of the best teams. And I think that makes a playoff even worse.
quote:A Super Regional is not similar to a conference championship. The #1 team does not face the #2 team in a Super Regional. That's why they have seedings. But if the #1 and #2 teams are in the same conference, then one of them is going to be eliminated before the post-season even begins.
If a CBB team goes 60-0, but loses out in the Super (read conf championship)
quote:Actually, it wouldn't. There was such a rule, in both the NFL and MLB, once upon a time. Then the whining (and the opportunity for more money) got to be so great that we were given the "wildcard" spots.
If there is such a rule, it would shut up a lot of the crying, media influence
Posted on 4/29/12 at 6:11 pm to 3xlsugrad
quote:But not as much possibility as a fluke upset, resulting in the crowning of some lesser team. I just don't regard a team as a "real champion" for winning 3 or 4 games in a sport that has a 12 or 13 game (or 11 game) season already in the books.
With 16 teams a real champion has the possibility of emerging
Posted on 4/29/12 at 6:14 pm to JPLSU1981
quote:How are subjective rankings part of a "perfect mix"? Why would any amount of subjectivity be desirable, as opposed to objective measures like wins, losses, SoS, or anything else decided on the field? Subjective measures are the epitome of things NOT proven on the field. As such, I am absolutely opposed to their involvement to any degree.
they are a perfect mix of subjective/objective rankings with SOS built in
Posted on 4/29/12 at 7:04 pm to Tigah32
I am in favor of an 8 team playoff but if we get a 4 at least it's a start.
I think the SEC will win the NC just about every year once we start the playoff system.
I think the SEC will win the NC just about every year once we start the playoff system.
Posted on 4/29/12 at 9:35 pm to BamaScoop
quote:Nah, they're going to finagle it to limit us to one team, and then make that team play as many games as possible to maximize the potential for a fluke upset. Eventually they'll catch one of us in one of those games. And I am totally unconvinced that our 6 year streak wasn't a factor in motivating change.
I think the SEC will win the NC just about every year once we start the playoff system.
Posted on 4/29/12 at 9:51 pm to Tigah32
If they try and pick teams by conferance or location it will be messed up.Last year the 2 best teams played so whats the problem.
Posted on 4/29/12 at 10:09 pm to Tigah32
I am against any playoff. While a playoff will financially benefit teams like LSU, USC and Alabama, it won't really be good for college football. What a playoff would mean is that the playoff round bowl games will matter most, and the participants will play in up to three major bowls in a single year. While that would net the top teams at least double what they get in a BCS game right now, it would block out other teams and reduce the marketability of the middle and lower bowls.
Bowl games give programs a quick pile of cash and some extended practice time at the end of the year. Think of the benefit LSU has gotten from second tier bowls like Capital One or the Cotton Bowl. These bowls should not be gutted to concentrate the money at the top.
Bowl money should be spread around to help fund improvements and help teams get better. A playoff only benefits the small handful of very top tier teams, while making things harder on the second tier. Money-wise, this will be bad for college football.
Bowl games give programs a quick pile of cash and some extended practice time at the end of the year. Think of the benefit LSU has gotten from second tier bowls like Capital One or the Cotton Bowl. These bowls should not be gutted to concentrate the money at the top.
Bowl money should be spread around to help fund improvements and help teams get better. A playoff only benefits the small handful of very top tier teams, while making things harder on the second tier. Money-wise, this will be bad for college football.
Posted on 4/29/12 at 11:35 pm to King Joey
quote:
I wonder why FBS college football needs to have a requirement that you win your conference when the NFL, NBA, ... none of them have to have one.
In the NFL and the NBA, you have to win the conference championship, not your division. But then you get shitty teams like the Giants winning it all with a reg season record barely above .500.
quote:
why should the regular season conference championship matter when the regular season itself doesn't matter?
Because that's how college football has traditionally worked. Unlike professional leagues, college basketball, and college baseball, there has NEVER been playoffs or tournaments in Div I college fball. In fact, football is not really designed to be a tournament sport; that's why you don't see Invitational tourneys at the beginning of the season like you do in basketball and baseball. The DNA of reward for a good season in college football is based in bowl games. You win your conference and your conference has a bowl tie-in, you get to go to the bowl game. Before Bama this year, the last school to win a Natl title w/o winning their conference was in 1936. Therefore, historical precedent says that a school should have to win its conference to win a National Title.
quote:
if you're going to shut out Bama last season -- even though they are the second best team in the country -- because they lost to us, why make us play some lesser team?
Given that Bama did not play one team with the vertical passing capability of OK State last year, you have no proof that Bama (or LSU) was better than the Pokes. You are following the ESPN logic that Bama was better because they have been a historically better program.
quote:
we knew that Alabama was better than Oklahoma State just as much as we knew LSU was better than Alabama.
OK State's resume begs to differ. And, no, you don't know that. See above.
This post was edited on 4/29/12 at 11:49 pm
Posted on 4/29/12 at 11:56 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
Bama played Miss St(7-6)
quote:
and UF(7-6)
Both were 6-6 in the reg season. They needed bowl wins over crappy teams to have a winning record. Besides, your schedule was so weak, you had to use the strength of ours as part of your argument to get in the game.
Posted on 4/30/12 at 12:01 am to bluestem75
What about having all the conferences get rid of the "divisions" within the conference and then have the teams play a round-robin to decide the #1 and #2 teams in each conference, which will then play a Conference Championship game? This will reduce all the OOC bullshite games, if not get rid of a lot of them. It would fairly decide each Conference Champion. Then you take those Conference Champs and have a National Championship playoff tournament, either 4 or 6 teams.
Posted on 4/30/12 at 12:06 am to Tigah32
for
Posted on 4/30/12 at 12:24 am to Rickdaddy4188
NVM Northshore covered it..
This post was edited on 4/30/12 at 12:27 am
Posted on 4/30/12 at 12:50 am to bluestem75
quote:
In the NFL and the NBA, you have to win the conference championship, not your division. But then you get shitty teams like the Giants winning it all with a reg season record barely above .500.
Yeah, you win your conference after competing in a thing called playoffs, including wild card teams who werent even divisional champions..
quote:
In fact, football is not really designed to be a tournament sport
Name another division of football without playoffs.. pee-wee, jr. high, high school, every other college division, NFL, etc.
Everyone calling out that you must win a conference title is looking backwards and not forwards.. Wait until LSU goes 11-1, with a close loss to eventual SEC champion, and gets skipped over by Mountain West champ Boise St. at 10-2, Big 12 champ Nebraska at 9-3, etc., and your tune will change..
Posted on 4/30/12 at 12:52 am to Tigah32
For 
4 team to start. Wouldn't mind it expanding to 8 later, possibly....depending on how the first ones go.
4 team to start. Wouldn't mind it expanding to 8 later, possibly....depending on how the first ones go.
Posted on 4/30/12 at 12:54 am to bluestem75
quote:
Both were 6-6 in the reg season. They needed bowl wins over crappy teams to have a winning record. Besides, your schedule was so weak, you had to use the strength of ours as part of your argument to get in the game.
Does not make your statement any less incorrect.. Quit parroting EZE, you'll be better off..
Posted on 4/30/12 at 1:00 am to getback
quote:
In fact, football is not really designed to be a tournament sport
Name another division of football without playoffs.. pee-wee, jr. high, high school, every other college division, NFL, etc.
Every other division, subdivision, sport has a playoff. In fact, FBS football is the only team sport I can think of without some playoff.
Posted on 4/30/12 at 7:48 am to RogerTheShrubber
'Bout dang time!!! Now if we can get it expanded to 8 teams, we will have a workable compromise (even sometimes the top 4 are controversial).
Posted on 4/30/12 at 7:51 am to Tigah32
8 teams would be fair and more equatable and should include major conference champs with some at large.
Page 7 of 8
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News