- 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: NCAA Playoffs Look Like A Reality in 2014
Posted on 2/26/12 at 12:26 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 2/26/12 at 12:26 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
the only people who really pushed for OSU were (1) OSU fans and (2) LSU fans scared of Bama
Who pushed for Bama besides Bama fans and ESPN/ABC?
I believe as Bestbank pointed out, LSU fans were more aggravated than scared. Sure most LSU fans certainly thought there was a realistic chance LSU could be beaten by Bama. But the thing is, up to 2011, the ENTIRE BCS argument was most deserving, best resume, ad nauseum. Then suddenly in 2011, the talk becomes "eyeball tests" and "best loss." I didn't see any tears shed for Michigan in 2006 in the exact same situation (actually stronger because they lost by 3 to #1 on the road.) Where was the push for Texas to go to the Big 12 title game (and eventually to the BSC title game)in 08 when they clearly had the best loss of the three Big 12 teams? In both cases, the argument against those teams was that the teams that went in over them had a better body of work.
The whole eyeball test thing just puts more subjectivity into the system.
3
Posted on 2/26/12 at 1:03 pm to Obi-Wan Tiger
[Quote]Who pushed for Bama except Bama fans and ESPN/ABC?[/quote]
Almost everyone that mattered. Alabama was a near unanimous #2 in the AP, Coaches, and Harris polls.
Alabama didn't get a gift from pollsters as much as they got very lucky that the teams in front of them lost. That's college football, though.
Almost everyone that mattered. Alabama was a near unanimous #2 in the AP, Coaches, and Harris polls.
Alabama didn't get a gift from pollsters as much as they got very lucky that the teams in front of them lost. That's college football, though.
Posted on 2/26/12 at 1:08 pm to Bestbank Tiger
quote:
LOSER of the "Game of the Century"
it was not the game of the century and i wish LSU fans would stop using that
quote:
And if the B(C)S is always right as you claim, why do they have to tweak it again and again and again and again and again?
it's not "always" right, but it's more correct than other playoff systems of major sports
it's an evolving process, i hope they don't stop teaking it to reach as close to perfection as possible
Posted on 2/26/12 at 1:11 pm to Obi-Wan Tiger
quote:
. But the thing is, up to 2011, the ENTIRE BCS argument was most deserving, best resume, ad nauseum. Then suddenly in 2011, the talk becomes "eyeball tests" and "best loss."
the eyeball test and "Best loss" have been around for years and years and years
LSU in 2007 got both of these descriptions
quote:
I didn't see any tears shed for Michigan in 2006 in the exact same situation (actually stronger because they lost by 3 to #1 on the road.)
there was a HUGE debate that year as well. bigger than in 2011. when bama got in it was like "figures" nationally. when UF got in after 2006 it was a huge deal in the national news (due to non-football reasons i reckon)
quote:
Where was the push for Texas to go to the Big 12 title game (and eventually to the BSC title game)in 08 when they clearly had the best loss of the three Big 12 teams?
there WAS a push. there was a HUGE controversy that year about OU-UT. OU passed the "eyeball" test b/c they were KILLING teams that year. 60 points week after week
Posted on 2/26/12 at 1:14 pm to TigerintheNO
quote:
Looking at it, in the BCS era, only 3 times would you have to get to 7 or below
& that is an improvement?
Over years like 2003 and 2004, most certainly.
Posted on 2/26/12 at 1:16 pm to H-Town Tiger
2003 would have been a cluster frick though b/c OU wouldn't have made it under the "conference champ" system
Posted on 2/26/12 at 1:16 pm to 3rdandlong83
quote:
So essentially you go 8-4 (lose all OOC games) win your conference and play for the NC? 4 loss champions baby!
yeah, cause that's so likely to hapen. Look, I'm not a fan of expansive playoffs with too many teams like the NCAA, but even there far more #1 seeds than outliers like Villanova or even UConn last year have won.
Posted on 2/26/12 at 1:21 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
the only people who really pushed for OSU were (1) OSU fans and (2) LSU fans scared of Bama
Actually the opposite is true, the only people pushing for Bama were Bama fans and SECtards. My personal (obviously anecdotal) experience was that fans of every other team be they Big 12, B1G, Pac 12 all thought it should have been OSU.
Posted on 2/26/12 at 1:21 pm to Obi-Wan Tiger
quote:
Bama fans and ESPN/ABC?
redundant
Posted on 2/26/12 at 1:24 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
, the only people pushing for Bama were Bama fans and SECtards.
the AP, which is a cross section of national writers, had Bama #2, no?
This post was edited on 2/26/12 at 1:25 pm
Posted on 2/26/12 at 1:26 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
2003 would have been a cluster frick though b/c OU wouldn't have made it under the "conference champ" system
No it wouldn't have. They were #3 in the "human" polls. Under the current format they would not have been in the game anyway. Using that season's final BCS rankings, you'd have #2 LSU, #3 USC, #4 UM and #7 FSU. Hardly a cluster frick especially if either LSU or SC wins.
Posted on 2/26/12 at 1:27 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
Under the current format they would not have been in the game anyway.
big difference in a 1-loss USC going over a 1-loss OU than a 2-loss UM going over OU
Posted on 2/26/12 at 1:29 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
2003 would have been a cluster frick though b/c OU wouldn't have made it under the "conference champ" system
No it wouldn't have. They were #3 in the "human" polls. Under the current format they would not have been in the game anyway. Using that season's final BCS rankings, you'd have #2 LSU, #3 USC, #4 UM and #7 FSU. Hardly a cluster frick especially if either LSU or SC wins.
Posted on 2/26/12 at 1:33 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
frick that
it's a stupid and illogical system unless the playoffs select the best teams in CFB
that's the ENTIRE point.
Conference championships should mean something, at least under the scenario that played out last season.
To me, the system is fine how it is. They fricked it up by letting two SEC teams get in last year though. Now all of the other conferences are pissed off.
They should keep the system how it is now, but there shouldn't be two teams from the same conference playing in the title game.
This post was edited on 2/26/12 at 1:36 pm
Posted on 2/26/12 at 1:33 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
the eyeball test and "Best loss" have been around for years and years and years
LSU in 2007 got both of these descriptions
I don't recall the quality of loss being such a big deal before this year. And how were LSU's loses in 2007 considered good loses? The quality of wins and overall SOS were argued for us in 07.
quote:
the AP, which is a cross section of national writers, had Bama #2, no?
I'm talking about the argument over who should have been #2 leading up and after the match ups were announced. Only Bama fans and some SEC fans felt they should be #2, fans of pretty much every team outside of Bama and excluding LSU overwhelming thought OSU should have been in over Bama.
Posted on 2/26/12 at 1:35 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
big difference in a 1-loss USC going over a 1-loss OU than a 2-loss UM going over OU
yeah, but they'd still be #3. That's really why I don't like CCG however. We will of course never know if it would have different for OU if there had been a stipulation that you had to win your conference. A lot of people speculated that they didn't care about that game as much, because they knew they were in the BCS CG regardless.
Posted on 2/26/12 at 1:45 pm to loweralabamatrojan
I agree with this. We got fricked having to beat a team twice.
Posted on 2/26/12 at 1:58 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
And how were LSU's loses in 2007 considered good loses?
I was gonna say this too, but you beat me to it. Especially Arky AT HOME when we had been given new life. Once our overall resume was looked at...winning the SEC title and the big win over VT, they had no choice but to vault us over VT and UGA. Hell, in 03 our loss wasn't good. But we got in because of our overall body of work.
Posted on 2/26/12 at 1:59 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
there WAS a push. there was a HUGE controversy that year about OU-UT. OU passed the "eyeball" test b/c they were KILLING teams that year. 60 points week after week
I seem to remember the overriding factor being UT's terrible OOC schedule. Not to mention, if UT-OU had been the LAST game played in that group of games between UT, OU and TT, they'd have been in the Big 12 title game.
This post was edited on 2/26/12 at 2:11 pm
Posted on 2/26/12 at 2:10 pm to Obi-Wan Tiger
quote:
03 our loss wasn't good.
Quality of loss was talked about in 2003 among voters as a reason to vote for USC, but in a different context. USC lost by 3 in OT, LSU lost by 12 at home and OU got their arse kicked. That's different from saying Bama should go because OSU lost to Iowa State.
Page 3 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News