- 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: I don't like the new playoff system
Posted on 11/4/14 at 9:57 pm to Professor Parks
Posted on 11/4/14 at 9:57 pm to Professor Parks
quote:
BCS was fine
Should just use BCS rankings not a committee
All of this.
0
Posted on 11/4/14 at 10:04 pm to DriveByBBQ
Its gonna be 2 that would've went with the BCS and then 2 more. I dont have a problem with it.
Posted on 11/4/14 at 10:13 pm to Socratics
quote:
Collusion for who exactly
The people in that room, their cronies, ESPN, etc...
quote:
WTF did Bama do last week to be reward a #3 ranking in the coaches poll last week.
I don't follow it that closely but I can tell you this, if you're trying to convince me that 12 powerful people in a room secretly deciding who makes it in the playoffs with minimal personal accountability is better than an open and transparent computer generated algorithm/ranking system you're not going to do it...
Posted on 11/4/14 at 10:19 pm to DriveByBBQ
quote:
Should be the top four BCS teams...or eight or whatever...but a closed door committee is too opaque and reeks of collusion. Also group decisions lend themselves to riskier choices because there's a displacement of responsibility.
You either don't know what opaque means or you don't know what a "closed door committee" is.
Posted on 11/4/14 at 10:20 pm to pivey14
quote:
Do you realize how many games that is including regular season and conference championships?
I'm sure they said the same thing about a 14 game season back when it was still 10 games.
And to get to 16 games, you're actually only adding two games to the season from where we're at now. That doesn't seem too hard.
Posted on 11/4/14 at 10:24 pm to SystemsGo
quote:
You either don't know what opaque means or you don't know what a "closed door committee" is.
no, I'm correct in the message I intended to convey.
opaque
quote:
not able to be seen through; not transparent.
Posted on 11/4/14 at 10:56 pm to DriveByBBQ
quote:
not able to be seen through; not transparent.
You're suggesting that a closed door is a cure for a committee that is flawed because it's opaque? Kindly stop posting on message boards.
Posted on 11/4/14 at 11:08 pm to SystemsGo
Lol @ you
Posted on 11/4/14 at 11:14 pm to risesandfires
This system is the best we've had so far. It's finally based on who you beat and who you lose to. Not the classic "eye ball" test.
Posted on 11/4/14 at 11:25 pm to risesandfires
4 teams should be an improvement over a final 2 in the bcs for sure. I hope the committee remembers the reason for the BCS was to make sure the great matchups (e.g. PSU and Nebraska in 94) that didn't happen get to happen. That is, the system being altered should be an improvement to the regular season to allow for outstanding teams that wouldn't have been allowed a fair shot to show their excellence that opportunity.
This post was edited on 11/4/14 at 11:37 pm
Posted on 11/4/14 at 11:53 pm to Professor Parks
quote:
BCS was fine Should just use BCS rankings not a committee
Just so I can keep calling it the BCS out of convenience. Sayonara
Posted on 11/5/14 at 12:03 am to risesandfires
BCS with 2 is not enough
16 is way too many
The BCS system and 4 teams would have been the way to go.
16 is way too many
The BCS system and 4 teams would have been the way to go.
Posted on 11/5/14 at 12:21 am to risesandfires
The committee clearly doesn't know WTF it's doing.
Posted on 11/5/14 at 3:11 am to Jim Rockford
Before the BCS we relied on the polls and people complained that people were biased and these polls were biased and thus the BCS was born. Computers and their algorithms and the polls were combined to pick the top two teams who played for the championship. However, that didn't sit well with a lot of people either and so we are now presented with what we had before the BCS. People and polls that are biased deciding who is going to be playing for the championship. Except now instead of a bunch of people deciding ( the polls ) we have 12 people deciding. Its stupid, and its going backwards. What were they thinking when they came up with this idea? Either increase the number of playoff teams, or just use the freaking BCS system with polls and computers to decide the top 4. Its not hard and I don't know why they had to try and put everything into one poll decided by just 12 people. Its stupid.
Posted on 11/5/14 at 4:11 am to risesandfires
I,was always a big proponent of the BCS, but it was inherently flawed too. 2/3 of it was made up by humans, 1/2 of that--the coaches poll-- had infinitely more reason to be biased than the new committee. Besides the fact that none of them had time to watch all the other teams, because they were, you know, coaching their fricking own. Word was always that the assistant AD was filling out ballots anyway.
And the Harris voters were similar to the committee only less prestigious representatives with a much less transparent vote.
And even the computers--who,we all relied being the most objective and taking the human element out--did anything but. All those computers were totally different, based on subjective criteria that humans had deemed more or less important than other humans. Thats why you'd have some crazy 2'loss,team always inexplicably ranked higher than some undefeateds at certain points. One dude always had Pav 12 teams ranked higher based on their SOS because they played 9 conference games every year. So, even the computers had biases brought into their formulas by the biases that their creators had.
There is just absolutely no way to have an objective system with so many teams who play such different schedules. Human subjectivity will have to play a part. There's no way around it it. And I see no reason to shite on the committee before they frick up. I mean, Condelizza Rice is perhaps the most successful woman I the history of American politics. She is a serious lady who know doubt takes this--and every job she's ever had extremely seriously. But because she's a woman a you played high school football, you think you are somehow more qualified to make assessments on who is deserving of the playoff than her? Get fricking real. She is more qualified to do just about anything on this planet than 99.9999% of the tiny-dicked mysogynist trolls on this board
And the Harris voters were similar to the committee only less prestigious representatives with a much less transparent vote.
And even the computers--who,we all relied being the most objective and taking the human element out--did anything but. All those computers were totally different, based on subjective criteria that humans had deemed more or less important than other humans. Thats why you'd have some crazy 2'loss,team always inexplicably ranked higher than some undefeateds at certain points. One dude always had Pav 12 teams ranked higher based on their SOS because they played 9 conference games every year. So, even the computers had biases brought into their formulas by the biases that their creators had.
There is just absolutely no way to have an objective system with so many teams who play such different schedules. Human subjectivity will have to play a part. There's no way around it it. And I see no reason to shite on the committee before they frick up. I mean, Condelizza Rice is perhaps the most successful woman I the history of American politics. She is a serious lady who know doubt takes this--and every job she's ever had extremely seriously. But because she's a woman a you played high school football, you think you are somehow more qualified to make assessments on who is deserving of the playoff than her? Get fricking real. She is more qualified to do just about anything on this planet than 99.9999% of the tiny-dicked mysogynist trolls on this board
Posted on 11/5/14 at 4:27 am to Hot Carl
Preach 
Posted on 11/5/14 at 5:06 am to Jim Rockford
quote:
The committee clearly doesn't know WTF it's doing.
Instead of baahing like a sheep, you're gonna have to present an intelligent case how the committee "clearly doesn't know WTF it's doing." You can't, but I'll wait.
Posted on 11/5/14 at 5:35 am to Hot Carl
Condoleezza Rice... Sounds like a Mexican dish 
Seriously, great points though. You're spot on.
Seriously, great points though. You're spot on.
Posted on 11/5/14 at 6:14 am to BobRoss
quote:Agreed. Have the committee pick the at-large teams. I'm fine with that.
I think 8-team playoff would be best. Winner of each of the P5 + 3 at-large.
Posted on 11/5/14 at 6:20 am to yurintroubl
quote:
I think 8-team playoff would be best. Winner of each of the P5 + 3 at-large.
This, or make 4 power conferences, have a 4 team conference semi-final/final in each of those 4 conferences (like a 16 team playoff with regional tourneys), and then 4 conference champs. Maybe drop a regular season game to add in for this extra week (only have 11??)
It isn't a perfect system, but then the top 4 teams in each conference don't get killed by tough road games or fluke games where someone gets hurt or bounces just go weird
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News