- 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 12:55 am to Big L
Posted on 12/2/12 at 12:55 am to Big L
quote:
the more you expand a playoff, the LESSER the argument of the next team becomes
the number of teams past 8 who can claim to have an equal/better resume than 8 are in greater number than the teams past 2
the margins between those past 8 and 8 are slimmer, also
0
Posted on 12/2/12 at 1:01 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
that's not true. it was pretty solid until a few years ago
Define pretty solid.
With the exception of West Virginia in 2005, and then 2007 when they had 3 teams in the top 12, maybe. They sent Pittsburgh to a BCS bowl the year after Miami left and they were thrashed by Utah. They finished #25. B.C. was ahead of them at #21.
Miami and Virginia Tech kept the Big East respectable.
Posted on 12/2/12 at 1:05 am to brad8504
quote:
With the exception of West Virginia in 2005, and then 2007 when they had 3 teams in the top 12, maybe.
Louisville definitely won a BCS bowl game in that timespan
quote:
Miami and Virginia Tech kept the Big East respectable.
miami wouldn't have added much
VT wouldn't have done well in the Big East after leaving the easy ACC
Posted on 12/2/12 at 1:05 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
this year
Posted on 12/2/12 at 1:07 am to Big L
quote:
if it were up to me we would have kicked out VAndy and Kentucky for football and gone to 10 teams round robin.
This is retarded. We would have to give up the SEC title game which has GREATLY helped the SEC teams money wise and getting to the BCS title game.
This post was edited on 12/2/12 at 1:16 am
Posted on 12/2/12 at 1:17 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Louisville definitely won a BCS bowl game in that timespan
Against Wake Forest. Hardly impressive.
quote:
miami wouldn't have added much
They were one a top 5 program for four consecutive seasons at the turn of the century.
quote:
VT wouldn't have done well in the Big East after leaving the easy ACC
That wasn't what I was saying, but okay. Regardless, if the ACC is so easy, then you kind of defeat your point made regarding Louisville's BCS bowl win over Wake Forest.
Posted on 12/2/12 at 1:19 am to brad8504
quote:
They were one a top 5 program for four consecutive seasons at the turn of the century.
and then they fell off. they weren't even that good by like 2004
quote:
Regardless, if the ACC is so easy, then you kind of defeat your point made regarding Louisville's BCS bowl win over Wake Forest.
oh no. not one win!!!!
Posted on 12/2/12 at 1:28 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
and then they fell off. they weren't even that good by like 2004
They finished #11 in the AP Poll. Beat Florida in the Peach Bowl.
I get where you're going with all of this, but the point is, Miami and Virginia Tech were the only two teams from the Big East to make it to a national championship game. They were stronger as a conference with those two, which is something you mentioned in an earlier post as to how people view college football. As a conference, the Big East was better with those two. The best? No. But better than they are today or even five years ago.
quote:
oh no. not one win!!!!
If you give Louisville credit for that one win, I'm not sure why. The system pitted them against Wake Forest. Had they beaten Oklahoma, then yes, I'd give them more credit.
Posted on 12/2/12 at 1:34 am to brad8504
quote:
If you give Louisville credit for that one win, I'm not sure why.
they were a 1/2 loss team on top of the win
quote:
The best? No. But better than they are today or even five years ago.
well 5 years ago was 2007
they finished with 2, top-10 teams and another top-25 team
the big east was never amazing, but prior to the brain drain (dantonio, petrino, kelly, rich rod, etc) they were solid
Posted on 12/2/12 at 1:35 am to SG_Geaux
quote:
This is retarded. We would have to give up the SEC title game which has GREATLY helped the SEC teams money wise and getting to the BCS title game.
expanding to 14 and significantly unbalancing the inter-division games is worse. if it were up to me, here's my list of preferred options:
1. replace KY and Vandy with A&M and another school (not Missouri)
2. contract to 10 and play round robin
3 - expand to 14 and eliminate cross-division rivals and use NFL style selection to determine games. so the #1 and 2 from the previous year play each other in the curent year. so bama and lsu would have played Georgia and SC and likewise. 3 & 4 play each other and so on
4 - 99: something else
100 - what they did, which was add 2 teams and keep cross division rivals, introducing the significant probability of very unbalanced schedules. that did more in my mind to reducing the validity of the regular season than anything done prior.
Posted on 12/2/12 at 1:44 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
well 5 years ago was 2007
they finished with 2, top-10 teams and another top-25 team
Actually, that was in 2006. Either way, I'm aware of this fact. They were #'s 6, 10, and 12 in the rankings.
Either way, with Miami and VT still there, that conference has a lot more credibility, assuming the two of them continued playing well. So Miami tapered off after '03. It happens. Alabama had a period where they did the same. They'll have another at some point.
Posted on 12/2/12 at 1:46 am to brad8504
quote:
Actually, that was in 2006.
2007 as well
WV (6), BC (10), and Cinci (17), per the AP
Posted on 12/2/12 at 2:16 am to Bench McElroy
quote:
Hell no. A three or four loss team has no business playing for a national championship. Hell, if that format was in place right now, a five loss Wisconsin team would be in the playoff while a team like Texas A&m would fall short. I mean it sounds like a good idea in theory but it really is not.
Who cares? If they aren't good beat them you know the rules coming in. JUST LIKE EVERY SPORT IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSE.
Posted on 12/2/12 at 2:29 am to VerlanderBEAST
quote:
JUST LIKE EVERY SPORT IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSE.
I DON'T WANT COLLEGE FOOTBALL TO BE LIKE EVERY SPORT IN THE UNIVERSE. IT IS UNIQUE AND THAT IS WHY I LOVE IT.
The way the game is structured now has me doing things like throwing stuff at the TV while I cheer for Stanford to beat Oregon. I love that aboout college football. No other sport has that week in and week out.
Posted on 12/2/12 at 3:55 am to SG_Geaux
Bottom line for LSU: to get in the Top 4, we have to beat Bama. To win the NC, we have to beat them again. Isn't the same with them.
Posted on 12/2/12 at 4:13 am to SG_Geaux
Its unique in that its a 100% subjective popularity contest.
You could replace voters/the committee with 10 year old girls and have them vote on who has the prettiest jerseys and it would be just as legitimate as what we have now.
You could replace voters/the committee with 10 year old girls and have them vote on who has the prettiest jerseys and it would be just as legitimate as what we have now.
Posted on 12/2/12 at 9:41 am to VerlanderBEAST
quote:
in that its a 100% subjective popularity contest.
100%?
quote:
You could replace voters/the committee with 10 year old girls and have them vote on who has the prettiest jerseys and it would be just as legitimate as what we have now.
no, it wouldn't
it's like you think the people who vote on the games don't use any objective data when ranking teams
how many champions in CFB are bad champs? in 14 years there are 2 years in which you can argue (2003, 2004). that's better than the playoff systems in baseball and football
Posted on 12/2/12 at 11:11 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
in 14 years there are 2 years in which you can argue (2003, 2004). that's better than the playoff systems in baseball and football
I think you could argue 2000. I believe Miami or Washington could have beaten OU.
Posted on 12/2/12 at 11:19 am to Obi-Wan Tiger
fair enough. 3/14 is still a really high rate
people post about the BCS like it's this horrible system that doesn't work and that's silly to me
people post about the BCS like it's this horrible system that doesn't work and that's silly to me
Posted on 12/2/12 at 11:27 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
it's like you think the people who vote on the games don't use any objective data when ranking teams
They're not objective. They change the rules to fit an agenda.
Do you honestly believe that if Mississippi State had been in al-Abama's position last year, and Texas had been in Okie Lite's position, MSU would have gotten a mulligan? If you do, I bet I know where you got your shoes at.
You need to take the human element out of it. The voters apply the standards based on the name of the school, not an objective evaluation of their credentials. Have a simple, transparent ranking system instead. If you want to prevent a "bad" result, generate the computer rankings and then apply a few rules in an set order, like "(1) You have to win your conference unless no team in the top 3 is a conference champion. (2) If the #2 team is in the same conference as #1 and already lost head to head, they get skipped and #3 goes to the BCSCG." Those are just examples, but the point is to set up a system where teams are rewarded based on this season only.
quote:
in 14 years there are 2 years in which you can argue (2003, 2004).
I don't see the argument for 2003. A bunch of assclown sportswriters voted for the Hollywood team over the team that objectively had a better season. You're drinking the BSPN Kool-Aid on that one.
2004 is definitely arguable. So is 2011. Okie Lite should have been the national champions last year. You could also quibble about 2008, when Utah was undefeated in a respectable mid major conference and curbstomped the inbreeds in the Sugar Bowl.
Page 7 of 8
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News