- 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: When college football champions are finally determined through playoffs...
Posted on 12/2/12 at 12:09 am to H-Town Tiger
Posted on 12/2/12 at 12:09 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:
no he's right
no. he's not
quote:
The further away from the top you get, the weaker the argument
not true
it's your argument against the last team let in, not against the first team let in. if you don't agree with that, then you're arguing against why your system has x number of teams. if you're saying the 8th team has no argument for a title, then why do you have 8 teams? the only way that argument is logical is if the 9th team with the same argument as the 8th is a big deal
quote:
This year we get an SEC CG with the 2 teams that had the easiest SEC schedule
sounds like an SEC problem. not a BCS problem
a playoff wouldn't solve anything, anyway. they're not going to let 4 SEC teams in a 16 team playoff, let alone an 8
2
Posted on 12/2/12 at 12:10 am to brad8504
quote:
The Big East tanked after Miami and VT left the conference.
that's not true. it was pretty solid until a few years ago
Posted on 12/2/12 at 12:14 am to brad8504
quote:
Therein lies the problem. The Big Ten wanted this conference championship game. CCGs make money
the only reason the Big10 championship isn't legit is b/c OSU is on probation
the problem with how people view CFB is that they view it as a collection of 100+ teams
it's not. it's a collection of conferences (and notre dame). any change in the system has to take that into account
quote:
I'd rather see a contraction in the FBS--just like Saban wants.
i've been making this argument for years
D1 needs a 3rd division between the elite and 1AA
Posted on 12/2/12 at 12:17 am to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
I don't want to see the day that Ohio State rests their starters against Michigan because they have a playoff spot sewn up
Would never happen....that game would be bigger than a spot in an 8 team playoff.
Posted on 12/2/12 at 12:20 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
i've been making this argument for years
D1 needs a 3rd division between the elite and 1AA
even if this is the case, you'll still have 40+ teams in the highest division. The NFL has 32 and 12 teams make the playoffs. And arguments an always be made about who should get the wildcard spots...but the injustice of leaving out a 9th team IS DEFINITELY much less significant than leaving out a 5, 6, 7 or 8 with as good a record as the top 4.
As for auto-conference tie-ins...i don't like it because some conferences can be really weak. REmember when the 11-5 saints had to go on the road to play 7-9 Seattle? that shite doesn't even work in the NFL.
start with 8 teams, set some limits per conference if you want to, and use a BCS-style system to determine the top 8.
Posted on 12/2/12 at 12:21 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
if you're saying the 8th team has no argument for a title, then why do you have 8 teams?
Because lots of times, more than two teams have an argument. And there are enough teams that don't play each other that more than four teams have an argument, though I'd be happy with a 4 team playoff most years sans this year.
At this time, and in pretty much the history of college football, there has never been a team outside of the top 8 that deserved a shot.
Posted on 12/2/12 at 12:26 am to Big L
quote:
The NFL has 32 and 12 teams make the playoffs
the NFL has a lot of parity and the NFL shows all the time that it lets too many teams in. last year is a perfect example
quote:
but the injustice of leaving out a 9th team IS DEFINITELY much less significant than leaving out a 5, 6, 7 or 8 with as good a record as the top 4.
not true at all
quote:
and use a BCS-style system to determine the top 8.
so basically have a bigger BCS...while bitching about the BCS? brilliant
Posted on 12/2/12 at 12:27 am to noonan
quote:
At this time, and in pretty much the history of college football, there has never been a team outside of the top 8 that deserved a shot.
and there are loads of #8 teams that deserved a shot?
Posted on 12/2/12 at 12:30 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
not true at all
so leaving out a 2 loss BIg 10 team is as big a deal as leaving out a 1-loss SEC team? give me a break
quote:
so basically have a bigger BCS...while bitching about the BCS? brilliant
The process of trying to find more objective ways to identify the best teams is not the problem...it's the fact that only 2 of them get to play for the national title. I applaud their efforts to use a combination of ranking systems, both human and algorithmic to rank the teams. And i think some sort of process like this should be used going forward, but include more teams.
Posted on 12/2/12 at 12:32 am to Big L
quote:
The process of trying to find more objective ways to identify the best teams is not the problem...it's the fact that only 2 of them get to play for the national title
the problem of the "next team" still exists
quote:
so leaving out a 2 loss BIg 10 team is as big a deal as leaving out a 1-loss SEC team?
are you comparing #3 to #9? that's not logical
you have to compare #8 to #9
leaving out a 2-loss big10 team for a 2-loss pac12 team, or a 3-loss SEC team, or a 1-loss acc team?!?!!?!
Posted on 12/2/12 at 12:33 am to SlowFlowPro
No. But it covers your bases. Like I said, 4 teams is probably good enough right now. Though this year it would be crap. So I wouldn't complain about 8 teams. There are teams outside of the top 4 this year that could possibly win, but not outside the top 8.
The 7 and 8 seed should be happy just to get in. #9 should just say, awe shucks. Most years 5-8 have no shot to win. But it can happen.
The 7 and 8 seed should be happy just to get in. #9 should just say, awe shucks. Most years 5-8 have no shot to win. But it can happen.
This post was edited on 12/2/12 at 12:40 am
Posted on 12/2/12 at 12:34 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
and there are loads of #8 teams that deserved a shot?
Texas A&M is ranked 8 or 9 right now, and given the schedule parity in the SEC I absolutely think they deserve a shot.
I will re-emphasize that I disagree with the SEC expansion...if it were up to me we would have kicked out VAndy and Kentucky for football and gone to 10 teams round robin. and the reason i want to move those teams is because they consistently underperform and don't have the resources or fanbase to compete in the SEC in football.
Posted on 12/2/12 at 12:39 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
are you comparing #3 to #9? that's not logical
I'm talking about the severity of a snub of the current system. IN 03 USC was left out and should not have been, but the system could only choose 2 and it chose OU and LSU. IN 2004 3 teams went undefeated and due to early season voter rankings, Auburn got left out. As far as I know, there have never been 9 undefeated teams in CFB or 9 teams at the top with the same record. so the likelihood of an Auburn-esque snub is extremely remote, unlike now where we see it every year.
Posted on 12/2/12 at 12:40 am to noonan
quote:
But it covers your bases.
it also opens the possibility of a 3-5 loss champ
quote:
#9 should just say, awe shucks.
i can say the same thing about #3 this year
Posted on 12/2/12 at 12:42 am to Big L
quote:
I'm talking about the severity of a snub of the current system.
so am i
quote:
so the likelihood of an Auburn-esque snub is extremely remote,
but you're comparing 2 different things
AU was bad because it was a good #3 compared to a good #2. there are tons of #9s who can make the same argument compared to the #8 team. the margins are thinner (bigger snubs) and there are many more teams that can make the argument
the more you expand a playoff, the bigger the "argument of the next team" becomes
This post was edited on 12/2/12 at 12:43 am
Posted on 12/2/12 at 12:45 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
it's your argument against the last team let in, not against the first team let in. if you don't agree with that, then you're arguing against why your system has x number of teams. if you're saying the 8th team has no argument for a title, then why do you have 8 teams? the only way that argument is logical is if the 9th team with the same argument as the 8th is a big deal
If I didn't already know, I could tell you were a lawyer with this post
There has to be a cut off somewhere and it has to divide evenly into 2. Sorry but the argument for the 9th team over the 8th is not as strong as the argument for the 3rd team over the 2nd. No there aren't 8 teams that can claim to be the best. The trouble is, it varies from year to year. Some years, like 2011 and 2001 there's only 1 team that really should be the Champs based on the regular season. Some years, like 2002, 2005 and 2010, there are 2 and others, like 2003 and 2004 there are 3. There is no perfect system and given the disparity in schedules its really not possible to say who the 1 best team is. You have to balance the downside of having an "accidental champ" vs having a deserving team left out. 4 teams would usually suffice, but 8 won't give you a Villanova or even 9-7 Giants type of crap champ.
Rejecting the system because the 9th team will whine or have a minor case over the 8th or 7th team is the ultimate red herring., Its a lot easier to say tough shite to #9 than to #3.
Posted on 12/2/12 at 12:47 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
it also opens the possibility of a 3-5 loss champ
no it doesn't, 3 loses max, but I doubt you have any year in the BCS era with an 8 team playoff and a 3 loss team making the field.
quote:
i can say the same thing about #3 this year
and your argument against them is much much weaker than the argument against #9. 6,7 and 8 are there to round out the field if it gets that big. #3 is getting screwed because of pre season polls or subjective bias.
This post was edited on 12/2/12 at 12:49 am
Posted on 12/2/12 at 12:48 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:
If I didn't already know, I could tell you were a lawyer with this post
i've been making the same argument before i even graduated undergrad
quote:
There has to be a cut off somewhere
well yeah
in the perfect system all teams would play every other team infinitely
the issue i have is that people act like more teams getting in solves this problem. it doesn't. it actually expands the problem
quote:
Its a lot easier to say tough shite to #9 than to #3.
that doesn't make it logically consistent
that's just an easy way out to avoid creating the exact same problems the new system claimed to solve
Posted on 12/2/12 at 12:50 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:
no it doesn't, 3 loses max,
wisconsin has 5 losses
FSU had 5 losses in 2005
quote:
6,7 and 8 are there to round out the field if it gets that big. #3 is getting screwed because of pre season polls or subjective bias.
and how would 9 not be able to say it was screwed due to preseason ranking or subjective biases?
Posted on 12/2/12 at 12:53 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
the more you expand a playoff, the bigger the "argument of the next team" becomes
this makes no sense. the more you expand a playoff, the LESSER the argument of the next team becomes. 2004 Auburns argument for inclusion is 100X greater than any #9 team will ever be able to muster.
Page 6 of 8
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News