- 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: For or Opossed to BCS playoff?
Posted on 4/29/12 at 5:07 am to JPLSU1981
Posted on 4/29/12 at 5:07 am to JPLSU1981
quote:That sentiment cannot be legitimately reconciled with favoring a playoff. I don't know if you favor a playoff or not, but the very essence of a playoff is that any determination made during the regular season is completely meaningless, and only the last 2/3/4 games of the season count in determining the National Championship. It is like LSU's 2000 National Championship in baseball. Skip did not concern himself greatly with regular season play, even in conference. His focus was always on winning the playoffs. Of course we won the SEC several times simply because we were awesome. But when we didn't, it wasn't a big deal to him because he was focused on going out and winning the CWS. Which we did.
If you cannot win your conference, it is technically impossible IMO to later proclaim yourself as "nation's best."
So winning the conference is completely seperate from winning the National Championship. It's two different competitions. In the playoff advocate's mind, LSU was better than Alabama last year at playing for a conference championship, but Alabama was better than LSU at playing for a National Championship. It's like two different seasons, two different sports, one having nothing to do with the other. Like indoor and outdoor track. We were indoor champions, Bama was outdoor champions. Regular season, playoffs.
It seems really stupid and way less interesting to me, but apparently a lot of very vocal, very loud people really like it.
0
Posted on 4/29/12 at 5:09 am to King Joey
quote:Unless the invite goes to Conf Champs only.
No way was Bama going to finish below 4th this season, even with that loss. So unless we end up expanding to a playoff of only 3 teams, a team in Bama's situation will essentially always come back from a loss like that
Winning your conf should be a qualifier and top 4 ranked conf champs should play for it all.
Posted on 4/29/12 at 5:11 am to TheLoupGarou
quote:And everyone advocating a playoff will absolutely love that. That will be the greatest thing ever in college football to them. Who gives a frick about regular season games? It's just preseason part II. All they want is the thrill and excitement of a mediocre "Cinderella" team going on a lucky hot streak and being crowned the "best" team in the NFL-JV (formerly known as college football) for winning 3 games.
Someday you'll have a UConn get in with a 8-4 record in the sorriest conference in the land, then go on a roll, and with some lucky breaks, wins the championship.....and be the consensus 15th best team in the country. And then CFB will become NCAAM BB.
Posted on 4/29/12 at 5:15 am to duboisd
quote:With all due respect, I don't think you are getting it. They're not talking about one team that's 12-0 and another team that's 10-2. They are talking about the difference between their team going 12-0 and their team going 10-2. And in the playoff system, there is no difference. So who cares whether we win that Nov. 5th showdown, or that big season opener vs. Oregon? We're going to the playoffs anyway, so it's not big deal.
I get everyone's about the regular season, but the 12-0 team is not always better than the 10-2 team.
That's what the complaint is.
Posted on 4/29/12 at 5:17 am to JPLSU1981
quote:That's an intriguing twist. Still not a fan of a playoff, but this sounds less unappealing than most proposals.
The new twist that came out yesterday is that #1 and #2 will "host" a BCS semifinal game in their traditional bowl game. For example, if LSU finished #1, LSU would host #4 in the Sugar Bowl. If USC finishes #2, they would host #3 in the Rose Bowl. What this means is that no one would know which BCS games are going to be the two semifinal games until the regular season is complete. It's a way of incorporating the 4-team playoff without completely discarding traditional bowl tie-ins.
Posted on 4/29/12 at 5:37 am to GeauxGus
quote:Interesting that we keep hearing this from playoff supporters, the same folks who keep applying the mantra of, "every other sport does it" to support their interest in a playoff system. And yet, in none of those playoff systems in any other sport is there a requirement of winning ones conference (or even division, in sports that have both).
I agree : must win Conference. Period.
I wonder why FBS college football needs to have a requirement that you win your conference when the NFL, NBA, FCS, MLB, NCCA Basketball, NCAA Baseball . . . even many high school leagues, none of them have to have one?
Posted on 4/29/12 at 5:39 am to duboisd
quote:Wrong. We just think solving it on the field over the course of 12-14 games is better than solving it on the field over the course of 3-4 games.
Many of you think the regular season is far too important to actually solve things on the field
quote:Agreed. As I've said before, I hate playoffs, but if it gets polls 100% out of the mix, I'd take a 64 team field in a heartbeat.
Any system that requires people to vote on who is the best team sucks
Posted on 4/29/12 at 5:45 am to Mayhawman
quote:Why? They don't have that in any other playoff sport. And why should the regular season conference championship matter when the regular season itself doesn't matter? If my team is out of the running because we've proven over the course of the regular season that we aren't the best team in our conference, why shouldn't we be out of the running if we've proven over the course of the regular season that we aren't the best team in the country?
Winning your conf should be a qualifier and top 4 ranked conf champs should play for it all.
Either the regular season counts or it doesn't. If it does, the playoff is needless exhibition to afford undeserving teams a shot at a lucky break for the championship. If it doesn't, then who cares what it says about conference standings?
Frankly, the only thing worse than a playoff is a playoff that takes anything but the top teams. If the top 4 teams in the country are all in the Mountain West, then the SEC Champion has no business getting a shot at the title just because they won a lesser competition (highly hypothetical of course; just didn't want to offend the other conference fans).
Posted on 4/29/12 at 5:51 am to King Joey
quote:To keep the regular season meaningful by making it a playoff. Consider it winning your heat to move on to the next race.
I wonder why FBS college football needs to have a requirement that you win your conference when the NFL, NBA, FCS, MLB, NCCA Basketball, NCAA Baseball . . . even many high school leagues, none of them have to have one?
Posted on 4/29/12 at 6:02 am to Mayhawman
quote:Most track and field competitions do not require you to win your heat (at least in my experience). Most of them seem to take the heat winner plus some other number of the fastest times that did not win their heats.
Consider it winning your heat to move on to the next race.
Requiring a conference championship to get into a playoff is just a really unfair move, imo. That is just taking the free ride teams like Boise State and TCU have been given in the media and extending it onto the playing field.
Look at it this way: if you're going to shut out Bama last season -- even though they are the second best team in the country -- because they lost to us, why make us play some lesser team? If we've already proven we're better than a team that's better than (for example) Oklahoma State, why make us play Oklahoma State? And if you're not convinced Bama is better than Oklahoma State, then you don't need the conference championship requirement to keep them out; they just won't make the cut in the rankings.
The only way a conference championship requirement comes into play is if a team that doesn't win its conference has already proven it is better than one of the three (or four) highest ranked conference champions. And if that team's conference champion has already "proven" they are better than them by winning the conference, why make them face the lesser teams from other conferences?
And if it's uncertainty about whether one team is better than another as determined in the regular season that bothers you, then why rely absolutely on the determination of which team was best in the conference? If the regular season is good enough to absolutely determine that LSU is better than Alabama, and it is good enough to determine that LSU, Oklahoma State, Oregon and Wisconsin are better than Clemson and West Virginia, then isn't it good enough to determine that Alabama is better than Wisconsin?
Posted on 4/29/12 at 6:29 am to King Joey
quote:There are conf champs, cellar dwellers and mid-level teams that aren't considered for the NCG all the time. All you can do is your best. I don't get where you're going with this.
If my team is out of the running because we've proven over the course of the regular season that we aren't the best team in our conference, why shouldn't we be out of the running if we've proven over the course of the regular season that we aren't the best team in the country?
quote:In theory, an undeserving team wouldn't win it's conf or be ranked Top 4 conf champ with a heavier SOS weighted system. There will always be an argument over who should be in anyway, but not winning your conf should quench it some.
Either the regular season counts or it doesn't. If it does, the playoff is needless exhibition to afford undeserving teams a shot at a lucky break for the championship. If it doesn't, then who cares what it says about conference standings?
quote:They lost the qualifying tourney and tough shite, see ya in a bowl. A 4th place conf finish won't get you in the NCG now and you think a system that would is better?
Frankly, the only thing worse than a playoff is a playoff that takes anything but the top teams. If the top 4 teams in the country are all in the Mountain West, then the SEC Champion has no business getting a shot at the title just because they won a lesser competition
I'm for lessening the voter influence, relying on more SOS and body of work during the regular season.
Posted on 4/29/12 at 6:37 am to Mayhawman
quote:My point is, after 13 weeks of the season, we knew that Alabama was better than Oklahoma State just as much as we knew LSU was better than Alabama. Why put in an Oklahoma State team that has been proven (through the regular season) to be worse than Alabama and LSU, but exclude Alabama for no other reason than they have been proven through the same regular season to be worse than LSU?
There are conf champs, cellar dwellers and mid-level teams that aren't considered for the NCG all the time. All you can do is your best. I don't get where you're going with this.
quote:Why? If they are the 4th best team in the country, why do they deserve a shot at the championship? And if they deserve it despite being the 4th best, how can you justify denying Alabama a shot just because the are "only" second best?
In theory, an undeserving team wouldn't win it's conf or be ranked Top 4 conf champ with a heavier SOS weighted system.
quote:No, I think expanding the playoff system is bad overall. But you are saying that a system that puts in the 5th, 6th and 7th best teams and excludes the 2nd, 3rd and 4th best teams is better. I just don't see the rationale in exluding the second best team when you're giving the 4th (and possibly worse) teams a shot.
A 4th place conf finish won't get you in the NCG now and you think a system that would is better?
Posted on 4/29/12 at 6:42 am to Mayhawman
quote:100% in agreement here. In my opinion, this should be the #1 priority in any attempt to "fix" college football.
I'm for lessening the voter influence
quote:Also agree.
relying on more SOS
quote:This is why I object to a playoff, which is the complete opposite of weighing on the body of word during the regular season.
and body of work during the regular season
If I'm ranking the greatest NFL teams of all time, the 2007 Patriots are way, WAY higher on the list than the 2007 Giants. In my opion, the awarding of championships should reflect the same kind of evaluation. I believe the championship should be won by being the best team that season. Weighing two or three games to the complete exclusion of the other 12 or 13 is, in my opinion, a horrible way of accomplishing that.
Posted on 4/29/12 at 6:55 am to King Joey
quote:At the time of a playoff, or bowl season in 2012, the only tangible I get from that is LSU> UA, UO, and WVU.
If the regular season is good enough to absolutely determine that LSU is better than Alabama, and it is good enough to determine that LSU, Oklahoma State, Oregon and Wisconsin are better than Clemson and West Virginia, then isn't it good enough to determine that Alabama is better than Wisconsin?
and
Gumps 27- PSU 11
Whisky 45- PSU 7
This post was edited on 4/29/12 at 7:38 am
Posted on 4/29/12 at 7:00 am to Mayhawman
No to playoffs, basically agree with everything King posted. I'm afraid CFB is about to start down a terrible path, changing the things that make CFB great.
27-11
quote:
Gumps 17- PSU 11
27-11
Posted on 4/29/12 at 7:01 am to Mayhawman
quote:Well, then how does that justify putting in Oklahoma State and Oregon ahead of WVU and Clemson? My point is, if the regular season is good enough to eliminate conference champions like West Virginia and Clemson from contention, then why isn't it good enough to get a team like Alabama or Stanford in contention?
At the time of a playoff, or bowl season in 2012, the only tangible I get from that is LSU> UA, UO, and WVU
A playoff is bad enough; a playoff without the best teams in it is just horrible.
Posted on 4/29/12 at 7:26 am to King Joey
quote:You are using what to determine 2nd best- the poll you'd like to see less of? They're out because Alabama had it's shot and blew it, not because they're denied.
If they are the 4th best team in the country, why do they deserve a shot at the championship? And if they deserve it despite being the 4th best, how can you justify denying Alabama a shot just because the are "only" second best?
And this point also rings:
If a CBB team goes 60-0, but loses out in the Super (read conf championship) is there a bunch of screaming how they should be in CWS instead of so and so, who's a 45-15 Super winner?
If there is such a rule, it would shut up a lot of the crying, media influence and voter influence.
Posted on 4/29/12 at 7:37 am to bona fide
quote:
27-11
Sorry for the typo and edited
Posted on 4/29/12 at 7:46 am to Tigah32
16 team playoff. Nothing less.
Get rid of the Conference Championship games and shorten regular season back to 11 games.
With 16 teams a real champion has the possibility of emerging. Just as in all other sports. And there is less of a possibility that the BCS and/or the NCAA will screw it up annually. The current BCS polls could be used to establish who makes the playoffs.
Get rid of the Conference Championship games and shorten regular season back to 11 games.
With 16 teams a real champion has the possibility of emerging. Just as in all other sports. And there is less of a possibility that the BCS and/or the NCAA will screw it up annually. The current BCS polls could be used to establish who makes the playoffs.
Posted on 4/29/12 at 8:16 am to King Joey
I certainly have my opinions, but at the end of the day our opinions don't really matter. The 4-team playoff is coming in 2014. 1vs4 in a BCS game and 2vs3 in another BCS game with the championship a week later. There won't be a requirement to win your conference.
That said, I am adamantly opposed to any "playoff" bigger than 4 teams. I'm just fine with the current system at 2 teams, but I'll grow to be ok with 4. I also have no issue with the BCS rankings and polls (they are a perfect mix of subjective/objective rankings with SOS built in). I do believe that a team should have to win its conference to be eligible to win it all, but it appears I am in the minority.
FWIW, if the new system that we'll have in 2014 was in place last year, we very well could have ended up with a Bama-Stanford championship game, neither of which won their conference. That's insanity IMO.
That said, I am adamantly opposed to any "playoff" bigger than 4 teams. I'm just fine with the current system at 2 teams, but I'll grow to be ok with 4. I also have no issue with the BCS rankings and polls (they are a perfect mix of subjective/objective rankings with SOS built in). I do believe that a team should have to win its conference to be eligible to win it all, but it appears I am in the minority.
FWIW, if the new system that we'll have in 2014 was in place last year, we very well could have ended up with a Bama-Stanford championship game, neither of which won their conference. That's insanity IMO.
This post was edited on 4/29/12 at 8:28 am
Page 6 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News