- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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
A team that doesn't win their conference, doesn't deserve to play
Posted on 11/7/10 at 9:47 am
Posted on 11/7/10 at 9:47 am
for the BCSNC. I don't care if it's LSU or not.
That said, I think every conference should have a championship game. If you can't win your league, you shouldn't play for a title. But, by the same token you shouldn't be able to play for a title by finishing first (or second) in a league and not playing a conference championship game.
My solution is to have a tournament of champions at the end of the regular season. Win your league via a conference championship game, and you're in. The regular season is still just as meaningful, and teams like Boise and TCU get a chance to prove it on the field. And, AQ schools get the opportunity to prove on the field why, in the computer rankings era, they should get the nod over a non AQ school.
Would this work? Why or why not?
That said, I think every conference should have a championship game. If you can't win your league, you shouldn't play for a title. But, by the same token you shouldn't be able to play for a title by finishing first (or second) in a league and not playing a conference championship game.
My solution is to have a tournament of champions at the end of the regular season. Win your league via a conference championship game, and you're in. The regular season is still just as meaningful, and teams like Boise and TCU get a chance to prove it on the field. And, AQ schools get the opportunity to prove on the field why, in the computer rankings era, they should get the nod over a non AQ school.
Would this work? Why or why not?
18
Posted on 11/7/10 at 9:49 am to ezride25
Doesn't work. Look at how bad the Big East and ACC are. Those "champions" wouldn't deserve a shot over teams like LSU, who may not win their conference.
Posted on 11/7/10 at 9:49 am to ezride25
i don't care
Posted on 11/7/10 at 9:50 am to ezride25
as much as I dislike Bob Stoops, he hit the nail on the head when he said, "If you want to require a team to win their conference Championship, then require it and require everyone to play a championship game. Otherwise, as it is now, it's not required. Just go by the rules that are in place."
Until there is a playoff system, this argument will not die.
Until there is a playoff system, this argument will not die.
Posted on 11/7/10 at 9:53 am to ezride25
If this were the NFL where a massive amount of effort is done to increase parity, then you might be on to something. But even the NFL lets none conference winners in. The real rule is you are not allowed to participate if your conference champion can't participate. With only two teams the opportunity for a nonchampion would be very limited, but would increase dramaticly with the number of playoff positions.
Posted on 11/7/10 at 9:53 am to ezride25
With the 4 best SEC teams all in the western division, I wish the 2 teams to play in the conference championship would be determined by conference standings and overall standings. This would be the most fair IMO. It would be sort of like a in-conference BCS.
Posted on 11/7/10 at 9:54 am to ezride25
I agree except for the SEC. If LSU ends up as the only one loss team they should play in the big game. Four straight champs deserve a team in the big game
Posted on 11/7/10 at 9:54 am to tjohn deaux
ezride if lsu runs the table ands 2nd to auburn we should play them for nc! We had the toughfest sch. in the country.
Posted on 11/7/10 at 9:55 am to ezride25
quote:
A team that doesn't win their conference, doesn't deserve to play
Stupid statement when all conferences are not created equal and when all conferences don't use same method to determiine champion.
Posted on 11/7/10 at 9:55 am to coldhotwings
quote:
With the 4 best SEC teams all in the western division, I wish the 2 teams to play in the conference championship would be determined by conference standings and overall standings. This would be the most fair IMO. It would be sort of like a in-conference BCS.
So you don't believe that LSU should have had a shot in 2001?
Posted on 11/7/10 at 10:00 am to ezride25
as a spectator, i would love it. not sure what the financial impact would be to the mid-size schools that go to bowls now or the bowls in general. what i mean simply is, does this increase or decrease the size of the pie and how does it change the distribution? we could end up with a socialist solution on how to split the money. another question is what would this do to the scheduling?. to me if boise or tcu want a piece of the bcs, they need to start scheduling the big boys like florida state did yrs ago. they earned their seat at the table and so should these whiners. i definately agree we should not go to the nc if we don't win the conference. said the same about uga in '07.
Posted on 11/7/10 at 10:04 am to Indiana Tiger
quote:
So you don't believe that LSU should have had a shot in 2001?
I still believe that Florida was a better team than LSU that year but due to current rules, LSU got their fair shot. Same with whomever goes from the SEC east this year. I wouldn't mind to see rule change for future seasons though. This will most likely ensure an SEC team in the BCS NC.
Posted on 11/7/10 at 10:05 am to LSU GrandDad
You could still have bowl games. The model I propose is simply a way to decide on the field who plays in the NCG rather than using the computers etc. I don't know how it would all work, but the idea does not exclude the bowl system.
Posted on 11/7/10 at 10:06 am to ezride25
quote:
. But, by the same token you shouldn't be able to play for a title by finishing first (or second) in a league and not playing a conference championship game.
why CCG are fricking stupid and about nothing but extra revenue.
The Pac 10 has the best system for determining a conference champ, sadly that will end when thy expand
Posted on 11/7/10 at 10:13 am to H-Town Tiger
If the season ended today Auburn would play Florida or S.C. neither of which have been spectacular this season. That part I don't like, because LSU (arguably the second best team in the SEC right now) gets left out.
If as someone suggested we had a "mini BCS" ranking system in each conference. Then the two best teams from each conference (regardless of division) earn the opportunity to win that conference via a CCG, and move on to a tournament of those conference champions.
Then you don't leave good teams out of the conversation. They get the opportunity, and I think that is all anyone wants is the opportunity.
If as someone suggested we had a "mini BCS" ranking system in each conference. Then the two best teams from each conference (regardless of division) earn the opportunity to win that conference via a CCG, and move on to a tournament of those conference champions.
Then you don't leave good teams out of the conversation. They get the opportunity, and I think that is all anyone wants is the opportunity.
This post was edited on 11/7/10 at 10:14 am
Posted on 11/7/10 at 10:17 am to tjohn deaux
quote:
as much as I dislike Bob Stoops, he hit the nail on the head when he said, "If you want to require a team to win their conference Championship, then require it and require everyone to play a championship game. Otherwise, as it is now, it's not required. Just go by the rules that are in place."
Posted on 11/7/10 at 10:18 am to ezride25
the problem is the divisional setup.
Take the top two teams and let them play in the SEC CG.
The problems come when you have like LSU/Auburn or Texas/OU where they are in the same division, lose to the other in a close game, win out, and the leader plays a three loss team from the other division that should not even be there.
Take the top two teams and let them play in the SEC CG.
The problems come when you have like LSU/Auburn or Texas/OU where they are in the same division, lose to the other in a close game, win out, and the leader plays a three loss team from the other division that should not even be there.
Posted on 11/7/10 at 10:19 am to ezride25
quote:
If as someone suggested we had a "mini BCS" ranking system in each conference. Then the two best teams from each conference (regardless of division) earn the opportunity to win that conference via a CCG, and move on to a tournament of those conference champions.
Then you don't leave good teams out of the conversation. They get the opportunity, and I think that is all anyone wants is the opportunity.
That's what I stated and would love for this to happen. South Carolina/Florida will get their "fair chance" vs Auburn in SECCG but if Slive wants a higher percentage of an SEC team making it to the BCSNC, he should make this happen.
Back in 2001, LSU and Florida both loss once in the regular season to Tennessee. LSU got the rematch vs TN due to being in the opposite division even though Florida played the closer game against the Vols only losing by 2 points. Both Florida and LSU went on to win big in their respective bowl games.
Posted on 11/7/10 at 10:20 am to prplhze2000
quote:
and the leader plays a three loss team from the other division that should not even be there.
Exactly. The race for 1 and 2 should be in each and every conference regardless of divisional orientation. So in that case LSU could play AU for the SECCG.
Posted on 11/7/10 at 10:20 am to ezride25
Simple solution is to do what every other level of football does and have playoffs.
Page 1 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News