- 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: The BCS vs Playoff Debate
Posted on 7/14/09 at 11:32 am to Buckeye Fan 19
Posted on 7/14/09 at 11:32 am to Buckeye Fan 19
for anyone to say that an 8-10 team playoff would not diminish the season is just idiotic. just about every year (with a few exceptions) there are 3-loss teams in the top 10. in my opinion 3 loss team doesnt even deserve the chance to win a national title. your chance to prove yourself is through the regular season. if there is ever a playoff, it needs to be NO MORE than 4 teams
2
Posted on 7/14/09 at 11:36 am to LSU Red24
quote:
for anyone to say that an 8-10 team playoff would not diminish the season is just idiotic. just about every year (with a few exceptions) there are 3-loss teams in the top 10. in my opinion 3 loss team doesnt even deserve the chance to win a national title. your chance to prove yourself is through the regular season. if there is ever a playoff, it needs to be NO MORE than 4 teams
I basically agree. The only reason I'd like 6 is because it'd actually give an advantage to the 1/2 teams by giving them more rest and rewarding them by having to play 1 less game, but 8 or more would definitely be awful.
Posted on 7/14/09 at 11:37 am to Buckeye Fan 19
Except people would flip a shite about the 1/2 teams getting a bye, regardless if there's logic behind it or not.
Posted on 7/14/09 at 11:38 am to HeartOfGeauxld
Part of any playoff would come in a conference championship game. The Big 11 should have to expand to 12 and the Pac-10 split into North and South divisions. No team that doesn't win it's conference championship will be allowed to play for the BCSNC.
Then you have the SEC, Big XII, ACC, Big East, Big 10 or whatever they want to call it, Pac-10 champs and 2 Wild Card teams coming from ND (would have to be ranked in top 8) and/or the highest rated teams from the smaller conferences.
You seed the teams 1-8 and play 2 of the games in the Cotton and Chick-fil-A bowls and 2 others in one of the major bowls. The next round would be played in the other two major bowls. The major bowls would rotate each year. The BCSNC game would be played at a neutral site tbd like the Super Bowl.
This way all the bowls are protected with the minor bowls carrying on as before, the mid-major and major bowls still getting very good matchups and another city benefitting.
But don't hold your breath waiting.
Then you have the SEC, Big XII, ACC, Big East, Big 10 or whatever they want to call it, Pac-10 champs and 2 Wild Card teams coming from ND (would have to be ranked in top 8) and/or the highest rated teams from the smaller conferences.
You seed the teams 1-8 and play 2 of the games in the Cotton and Chick-fil-A bowls and 2 others in one of the major bowls. The next round would be played in the other two major bowls. The major bowls would rotate each year. The BCSNC game would be played at a neutral site tbd like the Super Bowl.
This way all the bowls are protected with the minor bowls carrying on as before, the mid-major and major bowls still getting very good matchups and another city benefitting.
But don't hold your breath waiting.
Posted on 7/14/09 at 11:39 am to MiketheTiger69
I'm not gonna read all that, but it's too complicated.
Posted on 7/14/09 at 11:45 am to MiketheTiger69
quote:
The Big 11 should have to expand to 12 and the Pac-10 split into North and South divisions
Says who? Who has the authority to demand that change?
quote:
This way all the bowls are protected
By "protected" do you mean taking an huge hit in ticket sales and less money for the city they are located in due to fewer fans and those fans not staying in town as long?
Posted on 7/14/09 at 11:47 am to MOT
quote:
Get rid of league championship games
Posted on 7/14/09 at 11:48 am to jab3292
It becomes more and more apparent to me every time I read through one of these threads that the people who whine about the BCS the most really have no idea what it actually is.
The system isn't perfect by any means, but it is still better than 99% of these genius playoff ideas.
The system isn't perfect by any means, but it is still better than 99% of these genius playoff ideas.
Posted on 7/14/09 at 11:58 am to MiketheTiger69
quote:
Part of any playoff would come in a conference championship game. The Big 11 should have to expand to 12 and the Pac-10 split into North and South divisions. No team that doesn't win it's conference championship will be allowed to play for the BCSNC.
Then you have the SEC, Big XII, ACC, Big East, Big 10 or whatever they want to call it, Pac-10 champs and 2 Wild Card teams coming from ND (would have to be ranked in top 8) and/or the highest rated teams from the smaller conferences.
You seed the teams 1-8 and play 2 of the games in the Cotton and Chick-fil-A bowls and 2 others in one of the major bowls. The next round would be played in the other two major bowls. The major bowls would rotate each year. The BCSNC game would be played at a neutral site tbd like the Super Bowl.
This way all the bowls are protected with the minor bowls carrying on as before, the mid-major and major bowls still getting very good matchups and another city benefitting.
But don't hold your breath waiting.
This would be terrible.
Posted on 7/14/09 at 11:59 am to MOT
quote:
The system isn't perfect by any means, but it is still better than 99% of these genius playoff ideas.
:kige:
Posted on 7/14/09 at 11:59 am to Buckeye Fan 19
quote:
I basically agree. The only reason I'd like 6 is because it'd actually give an advantage to the 1/2 teams by giving them more rest and rewarding them by having to play 1 less game, but 8 or more would definitely be awful.
I'm not sure who would have the advantage. If the playoffs continued right after the season like the NFL, I would agree with you. But with the extensive layoff, the teams that survived the first round may be at an advantage over a team with a very long layoff.
Posted on 7/14/09 at 12:03 pm to LSU Red24
BCS >
/thread
if you want me to go on, i can
/thread
if you want me to go on, i can
Posted on 7/14/09 at 12:07 pm to MOT
Heres my basic idea...ill try to make it as easy as possible to understand:
Iowa State (Big 12) ---> Big 10 (to be with Iowa)
This gives the Big 12 eleven teams, and the Big 10 twelve teams.
TCU (MWC)---> Big 12 to give the Big 12 twelve teams, and the MWC with 8.
Utah (MWC) ---> Pac 10 giving them eleven teams.
Boise State (WAC) ---> Pac 10 giving them twelve teams.
All four Independants (Notre Dame, Army, Navy, Western Kentucky) ---> Big East giving them twelve teams.
This gives all 6 BCS conferences (SEC, ACC, Big 10, Big 12, Big East) twelve teams, allowing them to split into divisions and play a conference championship game. This way there is no controversy over some conferences having play a championship game and some not. Also, this gives those "underdog teams" like Boise and Utah and TCU a legitimate chance to win a conference and play for a national title. I think this would lower the controversy at the end of the year greatly.
Iowa State (Big 12) ---> Big 10 (to be with Iowa)
This gives the Big 12 eleven teams, and the Big 10 twelve teams.
TCU (MWC)---> Big 12 to give the Big 12 twelve teams, and the MWC with 8.
Utah (MWC) ---> Pac 10 giving them eleven teams.
Boise State (WAC) ---> Pac 10 giving them twelve teams.
All four Independants (Notre Dame, Army, Navy, Western Kentucky) ---> Big East giving them twelve teams.
This gives all 6 BCS conferences (SEC, ACC, Big 10, Big 12, Big East) twelve teams, allowing them to split into divisions and play a conference championship game. This way there is no controversy over some conferences having play a championship game and some not. Also, this gives those "underdog teams" like Boise and Utah and TCU a legitimate chance to win a conference and play for a national title. I think this would lower the controversy at the end of the year greatly.
Posted on 7/14/09 at 12:07 pm to LSU Red24
quote:
in my opinion 3 loss team doesnt even deserve the chance to win a national title.
Just my opinion but if a 3-loss team made it into the top 10 (by some miracle) and then defeated two undefeated or 1-loss teams to make it to the NC game and then won, that team deserves to win the National Title.
People have to decide whether the National Champion is supposed to be the best team or the team with the best record. Once that's decided the playoff debate can be ended. Just my opinion.
Posted on 7/14/09 at 12:18 pm to Indiana Tiger
quote:
I'm not sure who would have the advantage. If the playoffs continued right after the season like the NFL, I would agree with you. But with the extensive layoff, the teams that survived the first round may be at an advantage over a team with a very long layoff.
Yeah, if the first two rounds were right after the reg season. I'm not really a huge fan of a playoff of any kind anyway, let alone one where there would be a month off til the first round.
Posted on 7/14/09 at 12:56 pm to PurpleKnight88
quote:
People have to decide whether the National Champion is supposed to be the best team or the team with the best record. Once that's decided the playoff debate can be ended. Just my opinion.
You aren't advocating a system for the best team. You are advocating a system that rewards a team that is hot at the end of the season.
Posted on 7/14/09 at 1:42 pm to lsumatt
quote:
You aren't advocating a system for the best team. You are advocating a system that rewards a team that is hot at the end of the season.
You're making the false assumption that best record = best team.
Posted on 7/14/09 at 1:59 pm to tigers
i like the BCS system, but there must be three rules added
1. All teams must play the same amount of regular season games
2. All conferences must have a conference championship
3. For a team to play in the BCS national championship game, they must be a conference champion
1. All teams must play the same amount of regular season games
2. All conferences must have a conference championship
3. For a team to play in the BCS national championship game, they must be a conference champion
Posted on 7/14/09 at 2:02 pm to tigers
quote:
You're making the false assumption that best record = best team.
1. No I am not. For one, its the best record against a great schedule. Schedule matters.
2. I never said it should go to the best team. I think it should be the most deserving, but...
3. A team that wins 3 games at the end isn't necessarily the "best team" or
"most deserving" either
Posted on 7/14/09 at 3:09 pm to lsumatt
quote:
3. A team that wins 3 games at the end isn't necessarily the "best team" or
"most deserving" eithe
My issue with this concept of best team or most deserving is that there is too much subjectivity involved. It's impossible to completely eliminate subjectivity, but a playoff (while not perfect) would help reduce it.
Page 2 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News