- 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: If you need a reason to hate the bowl system
Posted on 11/25/10 at 4:56 pm to H-Town Tiger
Posted on 11/25/10 at 4:56 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
the schools could decline the bowls, but its still only looking at one side of the equation. Teams in conferences share the bowl revenue.
No, I understand that teams in conferences share revenue. I’m sure the authors have spun some of these numbers to suit their “agenda”, but I think there is a lot of money that univerisities are letting slip through their fingers and into the hands of the bowls. That money should be the NCAA’s and the universities. I would rather teams make more money playing at home in playoff games. Or as a fan, I would rather spend my money traveling to another college town that I would never get a chance to travel to.
quote:
Because the SEC CG is a type of playoff and its stupid, see the 2001 season. Even after splitting 2 games with LSU, Tenn had a better record, its a farce that LSU is SEC C.
So would you rather us kick out 1 of our teams from the league and go back to playing 7-8 teams out of 11 and have split conference championships every other year? I’m sure that will solve things to determine who is the best 2 teams in the country.
quote:
Depending on the school, most people don't consider 6-6 a good season, Shula was fired at Bama for going 6-6 and making a bowl. He's not the only 1.
In my opinion, the rise of the number of bowl games is directly correlated to ADs and coaches getting bonuses if they make bowls. New Year’s Day Bowls use to mean something, now bowl games reward mediocrity.
Food for thought - here is the number of bowl games by year
1930 (1), 1940 (6), 1950 (8), 1970 (11), 1980 (15), 1990 (19), 2000 (25), 2010 (35)
2
Posted on 11/25/10 at 5:45 pm to bisceaux
quote:
In my opinion, the rise of the number of bowl games is directly correlated to ADs and coaches getting bonuses if they make bowls. New Year’s Day Bowls use to mean something, now bowl games reward mediocrity.
Food for thought - here is the number of bowl games by year
1930 (1), 1940 (6), 1950 (8), 1970 (11), 1980 (15), 1990 (19), 2000 (25), 2010 (35)
you don't think a similar thing would happen with playoff spots? Right now there are 2. Soon there could be 4. Coaches/ADs will get rewarded making the playoffs. Before you know it there will be 16 teams making it. Sounds horrible
Posted on 11/25/10 at 8:55 pm to The Easter Bunny
quote:
In my opinion, the rise of the number of bowl games is directly correlated to ADs and coaches getting bonuses if they make bowls. New Year’s Day Bowls use to mean something, now bowl games reward mediocrity.
Food for thought - here is the number of bowl games by year
1930 (1), 1940 (6), 1950 (8), 1970 (11), 1980 (15), 1990 (19), 2000 (25), 2010 (35)quote:
you don't think a similar thing would happen with playoff spots? Right now there are 2. Soon there could be 4. Coaches/ADs will get rewarded making the playoffs. Before you know it there will be 16 teams making it. Sounds horrible
Really, that sounds horrible? I guess I would rather 16 teams playing for a national championship over only 70 teams playing an extra game. Especially, with only 1 game between 2 teams really meaning anything.
Even if we go back to 1990 bowl games, that is 19 bowl games for an additional 38 teams that wouldn’t make the playoff. 2000 levels would allow an additional 50 teams to play that extra game. Now if we start using some of the bowls as semi-final and final rounds, those numbers would come down a little. And regardless of how it is setup, ADs and coaches should make more money playing in a playoff game rather than a bowl.
Enough of an ever expanding bowl system that rewards mediocrity! At least we might be at a point that they can’t add anymore bowl games since there aren’t mathematically anymore teams that can play in them.
Posted on 11/25/10 at 9:04 pm to diat150
quote:
1 out of 10 people support the bcs.
unfortunately, it seems like they all post here
Posted on 11/25/10 at 11:42 pm to WikiTiger
Kind of crazy on an SEC message board to see so many who support the BCS.
The system is horrible I hated it back in 98 when I was a teenager and NCAA football gave you the option of choosing BCS or playoff on the game.
Why should the opinions of the media and coaches and formulas decide who plays for the national championship?
There's some pretty cool articles where people discuss the NFL outcome of a BCS as opposed to them using a playoff system.
If 1 out of 10 years Alabama beats a team in the regular season and then loses out to them in the playoff. I'd rather deal with that than have Alabama lose one game out of 4 to top 20 opponents and be eliminated from the championship and watch some shite team from the west coast beat 11 cupcakes and one top 20 team and punch their ticket.
The system is horrible I hated it back in 98 when I was a teenager and NCAA football gave you the option of choosing BCS or playoff on the game.
Why should the opinions of the media and coaches and formulas decide who plays for the national championship?
There's some pretty cool articles where people discuss the NFL outcome of a BCS as opposed to them using a playoff system.
If 1 out of 10 years Alabama beats a team in the regular season and then loses out to them in the playoff. I'd rather deal with that than have Alabama lose one game out of 4 to top 20 opponents and be eliminated from the championship and watch some shite team from the west coast beat 11 cupcakes and one top 20 team and punch their ticket.
Posted on 11/26/10 at 7:41 am to bisceaux
quote:
So would you rather us kick out 1 of our teams from the league and go back to playing 7-8 teams out of 11 and have split conference championships every other year? I’m sure that will solve things to determine who is the best 2 teams in the countr
What? No, first off you need at least 12 teams to have a CCG, a conference is not required to have a CCG if they have 12 teams.
In 2001 after 8 SEC games, Tenn was 7-1 with wins over 6-2 Florida and 5-3 LSU. No need for an extra game to determine the champ, Tenn should be SEC Champs. As far as split titles, I'd like to know how often it happens where 2 teams tie that didn't play or 3 teams tie and beat each other? They often officially recognize 2 champs, but 1 beat the other. The SEC record books show LSU and Ole Miss as 2003 SEC W Champs for example. In an ideal world you could have a CCG when necessary. Last year, Bama and UF both were 8-0, have a CCG, in 2001, UT was clear cut winner, no need. I know it can't work like that, maybe get rid of divisions, but in all honesty, 2001 maybe an outlier, I just use it as an example of what I don't like about expansive playoffs or playoffs where you give auto berths to teams for winning a conference or division. There are plenty of other examples, in the NFL a couple years ago 8-8 SD won the AFC West and got in, 11-5 NE was out.
quote:
In my opinion, the rise of the number of bowl games is directly correlated to ADs and coaches getting bonuses if they make bowls. New Year’s Day Bowls use to mean something, now bowl games reward mediocrity.
As far as a correlation, it has more to do with TV, I think coaches and AD have been getting bowl bonuses for a long time and as you note the # of bowls has exploded. There are too many, but only the bottom wrung reward mediocrity, but some of those pair teams from the non BCS conferences. Take those out and its less for the bottom teams and conferences.
Posted on 11/26/10 at 8:23 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:
Kind of crazy on an SEC message board to see so many who support the BCS.
You’re not kidding. I was just posting a link to an interesting article that I hadn’t seen posted. I didn’t expect so many LSU fans to be so pro-BCS (or at least a few outspoken LSU fans).
quote:
The system is horrible I hated it back in 98 when I was a teenager and NCAA football gave you the option of choosing BCS or playoff on the game.
I don’t hate the BCS, but I just think that it has run its course and its time for a change. Like you, I wish they would have chosen a playoff but it was hard enough to get the Rose Bowl to join the BCS in 1998. From 1992-1998 we had the Bowl Coalition and Bowl Alliance with everyone except the Big10/Pac10 winner. Even Penn State losing the MNC to Nebraska in 1994 didn’t get those conferences on board. It wasn’t until the split MNC between Michigan and Nebraska in 1997 that finally got the Big10/Pac10 on board.
quote:
Why should the opinions of the media and coaches and formulas decide who plays for the national championship?
I agree 100%. And there has been several articles in the last few years including the one I posted earlier in this thread that bring up the fact that top-25 teams have basically stopped playing meaningful out of conference games. So it is harder to use connectivity rules to judge how conferences compare to each other. Just because a team is undefeated in 1 conference doesn’t mean that they would be undefeated in another conference. That same team might have 1 or 2 losses in another conference. Bosie St and TCU are having to deal with this issue hard right now and I sort of feel sorry for them because they don’t have a chance to play it out on the field. Who is to say that they wouldn’t be an undefeated or 1-loss team if they played in the SEC right now. I highly doubt it, but who knows? They are both really good teams that deserve a chance at a national championship if they win out. I would love to see an SEC team play one or both of these teams in a playoff. It would be much more entertaining than some of the out of conference games we have to put up in the current system. And these games would actually mean something, not just another bowl game that has absolutely no consequences for the winner.
quote:
There's some pretty cool articles where people discuss the NFL outcome of a BCS as opposed to them using a playoff system.[/qoute]
Got any links?
[quote]If 1 out of 10 years Alabama beats a team in the regular season and then loses out to them in the playoff. I'd rather deal with that than have Alabama lose one game out of 4 to top 20 opponents and be eliminated from the championship and watch some shite team from the west coast beat 11 cupcakes and one top 20 team and punch their ticket.
My sentiments exactly with both LSU and the SEC. The SEC has shown repeatedly during the BCS years that we can win it on the field winning it 6/12 years and 6/6 in the BCS championship game. So are you telling me that a 1-loss (or even 2-loss) SEC team in those other years weren’t just as good as the team that won the BCS national championship? Who knows, but it would have been good to see some of those games, especially USC/Auburn and USC/LSU.
Over the last few years I’ve also started to really question a team’s national championships counts, with no offense to the Tide :-) Seeing how the SEC has stacked up against the Big10 over the last decade in these “championship” games, I am starting to question the Big10/Pac10 MNCs over the last 50 years. I guess it is a shame the SEC didn’t get that Rose Bowl deal in 1947. At least the BCS solved this problem, but now it is time to add a few more games.
Posted on 11/26/10 at 10:56 am to bisceaux
quote:
What? No, first off you need at least 12 teams to have a CCG, a conference is not required to have a CCG if they have 12 teams.
Didn’t realize this, I just assumed it was required with an expansion to 12 teams.
quote:
In 2001 after 8 SEC games, Tenn was 7-1 with wins over 6-2 Florida and 5-3 LSU. No need for an extra game to determine the champ, Tenn should be SEC Champs.
I could go along with this in this situation if it is clear cut as it was in this example. However, this is the only time that this has happened in the SEC championship game. Out of 18 games since 1992, there have been 6 rematches (including Auburn/S.Car from this year). The team who won the regular season game is 4-1 in the rematches. So basically, the better team won the rematch in each of these years. But my earlier point is still valid, that at least this game is on a neutral field.
quote:
As far as split titles, I'd like to know how often it happens where 2 teams tie that didn't play or 3 teams tie and beat each other?
This is quite often for the Big10 although I don’t know how many times teams haven’t played each other and still had split conf championship. Since 1992 when the SEC went to a conference championship system, the Big10 has had 10 years with split conference championships. That is more than half the years with split championships and then you have potential situations like this year when you let voters determine who should go to a BCS game. And then you have situations like last year in the Big12 when you select the wrong team for the conference championship game.
I prefer the championship game and I am glad the Big10 has added the extra team to make this happen. It is a shame that it wasn’t Notre Dame but hopefully that decision will haunt them for the foreseeable future. If a conference wanted to do the right thing and not have a game when there was a clear cut winner, I am all for this but doubt it would happen since they would be leaving a lot of money off the table.
quote:
Last year, Bama and UF both were 8-0, have a CCG, in 2001, UT was clear cut winner, no need. I know it can't work like that, maybe get rid of divisions, but in all honesty, 2001 maybe an outlier, I just use it as an example of what I don't like about expansive playoffs or playoffs where you give auto berths to teams for winning a conference or division.
2001 was an outlier but it still doesn’t address how you compare conferences to each other in today’s system?
How do you compare the SEC-west versus the Big12-south when only 1 game occurred between these 2 divisions this year - Ark/TexA&M? How do you compare the SEC vs the Big10 when only 2 games (I think Ala/PSU & Northwester/Vanderbilt) have been played between these conferences this year? We could add to this list for ever - and it leads too very subjective rankings in my opinion.
quote:
There are plenty of other examples, in the NFL a couple years ago 8-8 SD won the AFC West and got in, 11-5 NE was out.
I don’t follow the NFL so I can’t address the issue you bring up. However, the NFL has many fewer teams and they do play teams from the other divisions throughout the season. The don’t play out of conference games against teams from the CFL or Arena Football League.
Would you get rid of the NFL playoffs and just have a committee select the “best” 2 teams each year to play in the Super Bowl?
Posted on 11/26/10 at 10:58 am to JB Bama
quote:
Kind of crazy on an SEC message board to see so many who support the BCS.
SEC teams have won 6 of 12 BCS titles. With out the BCS the SEC would not have done as well. The BCS has been awesome for the SEC overall even with 2004.
quote:
Why should the opinions of the media and coaches and formulas decide who plays for the national championship?
In all honesty can you really argue with the rankings too much? Sure you can quibble, Auburn should be over Oregon or Stanford should be higher or lower or what ever, but they are for the most part fair. Any playoff will have to have a cutoff, what would you base that on?
Posted on 11/26/10 at 11:01 am to JB Bama
quote:
Why should the opinions of the media and coaches and formulas decide who plays for the national championship?
present me a playoff system within the current conference format that uses no opinions of persons and/or formulas to decide who gets a shot to the playoffs. please, just give me the fricking plan
Posted on 11/26/10 at 11:16 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
SEC teams have won 6 of 12 BCS titles. With out the BCS the SEC would not have done as well. The BCS has been awesome for the SEC overall even with 2004.
I would argue that it might be even better with a playoff.
quote:
In all honesty can you really argue with the rankings too much? Sure you can quibble, Auburn should be over Oregon or Stanford should be higher or lower or what ever, but they are for the most part fair. Any playoff will have to have a cutoff, what would you base that on?
See my previous post - I think they we cross posted. Especially the part about the 2001 outlier.
How do you compare conferences to each other in today’s system?
How do you compare the SEC-west versus the Big12-south when only 1 game occurred between these 2 divisions this year - Ark/TexA&M?
How do you compare the SEC vs the Big10 when only 2 games (I think Ala/PSU & Northwester/Vanderbilt) have been played between these conferences this year?
We could add to this list for ever - and it leads too very subjective rankings in my opinion. Just because you have 1 loss in a conference doesn't mean that you should be ranked right along with other 1 loss teams from other conferences.
Posted on 11/26/10 at 12:32 pm to bisceaux
quote:
This is quite often for the Big10 although I don’t know how many times teams haven’t played each other and still had split conf championship. Since 1992 when the SEC went to a conference championship system, the Big10 has had 10 years with split conference championships.
That's the offical titles, how many times did those teams not play? I'm aksing, it could be more than I realize. This year could have 3 Big 10 teams at 7-1, but only 2 played, hard to break that tie with out an extra game I realize.
quote:
2001 was an outlier but it still doesn’t address how you compare conferences to each other in today’s system?
I just use the 2001 SEC CG as an example, its not meant to compare accross conferences, but the show the principle that applies. I'm not against playoffs. I just want the best or one of the best teams to win titles and I think that is better determined over the course of the entire season, not just a few select games. My preference for CFB would be a 4 team playoff, just take the top 4 teams using BCS style formula combining polls and computers. No auto bids just for winning a conference for example.
quote:
Would you get rid of the NFL playoffs and just have a committee select the “best” 2 teams each year to play in the Super Bowl?
In pro sports there are fewer teams you can just use overall record (Same works for Conferences in college). I would like to see fewer teams in the NFL playoffs however.
Posted on 11/26/10 at 12:34 pm to bisceaux
quote:
I would argue that it might be even better with a playoff.
In what years?
SEC won in 98,03,06,07,08,09. Only 1 year an SEC team didn't win that you could maybe argue one could have was 2004, its also possilbe other teams could have won a playoff in years SEC teams did win. USC would have been very dangerous in 03, 07 and 08 as well as 02, but an SEC team didn't win that year.
This post was edited on 11/26/10 at 12:47 pm
Posted on 11/26/10 at 12:46 pm to bisceaux
quote:
Really, that sounds horrible? I guess I would rather 16 teams playing for a national championship over only 70 teams playing an extra game. Especially, with only 1 game between 2 teams really meaning anything.
Yes, 16 teams (including 6-6 Sun Belt teams) getting a shot at the championship is significantly worse than what we have now. Why does it bother you that 70 teams play in exhibition games? Does it bother you that high schools have jamborees? Are you angry that Army and Navy play a week after the final BCS standings are released, too?
Posted on 11/26/10 at 12:59 pm to The Easter Bunny
quote:
That's the offical titles, how many times did those teams not play? I'm aksing, it could be more than I realize. This year could have 3 Big 10 teams at 7-1, but only 2 played, hard to break that tie with out an extra game I realize.
1996 - Ohio St did not play Northwestern
1998 - Ohio St did not play Wisconisn
2002 - Ohio St did not play Iowa
quote:
I just use the 2001 SEC CG as an example, its not meant to compare accross conferences, but the show the principle that applies. I'm not against playoffs. I just want the best or one of the best teams to win titles and I think that is better determined over the course of the entire season, not just a few select games. My preference for CFB would be a 4 team playoff, just take the top 4 teams using BCS style formula combining polls and computers. No auto bids just for winning a conference for example.
Although maybe not my preferred solution, it would be better than the current situation.
But as long as it is the top 4 teams after the bowls. And we would add the cotton bowl as an additional BCS bowl to select 2 additional at-large teams to be considered for the semifinals. In this case, TCU and Stanford (as of today) would play in this game and also be considered for the playoff.
So 3 extra games. That way we can compare the conferences and teams by a few conference champions (or runner-ups) playing each other in the BCS bowl games.
quote:
In what years? SEC won in 98,03,06,07,08,09. Only 1 SEC team didn't win that you could maybe argue one could have was 2004, its also possilbe other teams could have won a playoff in years SEC teams did win.
I’m an SEC homer, so all the years that we did not play in the BCS championship game :-)
Posted on 11/26/10 at 1:04 pm to bisceaux
quote:
But as long as it is the top 4 teams after the bowls
This would not be a good idea, the bowl matchups would be affected. What if you have 1 bowl with #1 vs #3 and another with #2 vs #13. Just take the top 4 teams, but 1 v 4 in one bowl, 2 v 3 in another. winners play a weak later.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News