- 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
I like Delany's proposal Re: Conference Champions
Posted on 5/4/12 at 11:16 am
Posted on 5/4/12 at 11:16 am
quote:
LINK
In the plan Delany discussed, a conference champion automatically would qualify for the playoff if ranked in the top six. If fewer than four conference champions were among the top six, the remaining spots would be filled by the highest-ranked teams.
I'm not fond of Delany, but I actually support this rule. It is IMO a very nice compromise on the "conference champion debate." To be eligible for the 4-team playoff, you must be a conference champion and ranked in the top6 of the BCS. If there aren't four conference champions in the Top6 to fill the four spots, then the highest ranked team(s) will take the remaining spots. This compromise eases both sides of the argument...Those that feel a 8th or 10th-ranked conference champion shouldn't be included in any playoff AND those that feel preference should be given to conference champions.
If this rule was in place in 2011, the semifinal games would have been LSU vs Oregon and Bama vs Oklahoma State.
I really like this rule....Oregon would have had a mammoth gripe IMO if Stanford would have gotten in the 4-team playoff over Oregon, which is what would have happenned if no rule like this was in place last year.
This post was edited on 5/4/12 at 11:17 am
10
Posted on 5/4/12 at 11:18 am to JPLSU1981
I can't believe I agree with the Big Ten on something. It's a good rule, and a nice compromise. It highly values conference champions, but also refuses to give a lousy conference champ a free ride. My only addendum would be an at large team could not play a team from its own conference in the first round.
Posted on 5/4/12 at 11:19 am to Baloo
Agreed and I like the Baloo Amendment.
Posted on 5/4/12 at 11:27 am to DEANintheYAY
I wish Slive would have come up with the rule. Then I would be all for it.
But right now its
But right now its
Posted on 5/4/12 at 11:28 am to Baloo
quote:
My only addendum would be an at large team could not play a team from its own conference in the first round.
I'd be ok with that too, but I also wouldn't be upset at all if that wasn't a rule. That wouldn't be a sticking point for me either way. To an extent, regardless of conference affiliation, I believe #1 should get to play the lowest ranked team ... it would suck if #1 somehow ended up having to play #2 in the first round semifinal.
This post was edited on 5/4/12 at 11:29 am
Posted on 5/4/12 at 11:30 am to JPLSU1981
quote:
In the plan Delany discussed, a conference champion automatically would qualify for the playoff if ranked in the top six. If fewer than four conference champions were among the top six
i didnt read the article but how exactly is he going to guarantee an automatic spot into a 4 team playoff when on a given year as many as 6 teams could qualify??
Posted on 5/4/12 at 11:32 am to bbap
Not sure I follow you...BCS rankings will continue to be used.
If there are 6 conference champions in the Top6, it's simple....1,2,3,4 make the playoff.
If there are less than 4 conference champions in the Top6, you just start from the top of the rankings and go down until the remaining spot(s) are filled.
ETA: winning the conference and finishing in the Top6 merely "qualifies" you for the playoff...It does not guarantee that you will make the playoff. BCS rankings are still going to be used and there will only be Four teams actually in the playoff.
If there are 6 conference champions in the Top6, it's simple....1,2,3,4 make the playoff.
If there are less than 4 conference champions in the Top6, you just start from the top of the rankings and go down until the remaining spot(s) are filled.
ETA: winning the conference and finishing in the Top6 merely "qualifies" you for the playoff...It does not guarantee that you will make the playoff. BCS rankings are still going to be used and there will only be Four teams actually in the playoff.
This post was edited on 5/4/12 at 11:34 am
Posted on 5/4/12 at 11:34 am to JPLSU1981
quote:
If there are 6 conference champions in the Top6, it's simple....1,2,3,4 make the playoff.
ok so its not 100% guaranteed. teams 5 and 6 are out of luck if everyone in front of them won their conference.
Posted on 5/4/12 at 11:35 am to bbap
quote:
teams 5 and 6 are out of luck if everyone in front of them won their conference.
Yep
Posted on 5/4/12 at 11:37 am to JPLSU1981
LINK
This guy went back to look at multiple years applying Delany's rule. It really didn't cause much change, and when it did the results were stupid. Take these two for example:
This guy went back to look at multiple years applying Delany's rule. It really didn't cause much change, and when it did the results were stupid. Take these two for example:
quote:
The first time Delany's plan makes a difference in the BCS era is in 2005 when you'd take USC, Texas, Penn State, and instead of Ohio State at the four spot or Oregon in the five spot, you jump 9-2 Notre Dame in to the playoff. Notre Dame, the team that, you know already lost to USC and didn't win any conference title at all. The outrage at Ohio State and Oregon would have been palpable.
In 2006 you take Ohio State and Florida as your number one and two teams, but then skip over Michigan and LSU at three and four to select USC and Louisville. What?
This post was edited on 5/4/12 at 11:40 am
Posted on 5/4/12 at 11:39 am to JPLSU1981
I still think it should be only conference champions.
Then the conferences select how they choose their champion.
No reason for a conference champion jn college football to have to beat a conference opponent in a playoff after winning the conference should have been an elimination method based on results on the field. No need to pick multiple teams from a conference when there are something like 100+ teams in FBS and teams only have a standard 12 game season.
I am personally tired of the voting and media bias and think conference champions are a way to better respect the regular season and results on the field.
Then the conferences select how they choose their champion.
No reason for a conference champion jn college football to have to beat a conference opponent in a playoff after winning the conference should have been an elimination method based on results on the field. No need to pick multiple teams from a conference when there are something like 100+ teams in FBS and teams only have a standard 12 game season.
I am personally tired of the voting and media bias and think conference champions are a way to better respect the regular season and results on the field.
This post was edited on 5/4/12 at 11:41 am
Posted on 5/4/12 at 11:42 am to Colonel Flagg
I would prefer conference champs only, but I do understand the concern that some people have of a team finishing 7/8/9/10 making the playoffs in a weak conference.
Delany's rule IMO is a nice compromise that hopefully everyone can agree on...Both sides of the "conference champion" debate would be satisfied for the most part.
Delany's rule IMO is a nice compromise that hopefully everyone can agree on...Both sides of the "conference champion" debate would be satisfied for the most part.
Posted on 5/4/12 at 11:44 am to arobbi3
The whole point is to determine the #1 team in the country. The regular season tournament style play the conferences go through should only leave one team from the conference with a logical claim for #1 in the
country.
country.
Posted on 5/4/12 at 11:47 am to Colonel Flagg
You don't have to convince me. I've always believe that it's technically impossible to be the best team in the country if a team wasn't the best team in its own little conference.
That said, maybe this rule can satisfy both sides of the argument and at least give some degree of preferential treatment to conference champions.
That said, maybe this rule can satisfy both sides of the argument and at least give some degree of preferential treatment to conference champions.
Posted on 5/4/12 at 11:47 am to JPLSU1981
I generally hate Delany, but this is a good compromise.
Posted on 5/4/12 at 11:51 am to JPLSU1981
What if the SEC was brutal and only produced at best a two loss team as a champion?
These other pussy conferences produced shitty conference champions because they are not as deep and it bumped the SEC Champion. That would piss me off. I don't see the point in multiple representatives from a conference when the conference play already declared a team was clearly the champion over the other participants.
I also think you leave the method of declaring the champion up to the conference so potential members only have themselves to blame when they have problems with the method. They can also decide which one is the most fair for their conference setup.
These other pussy conferences produced shitty conference champions because they are not as deep and it bumped the SEC Champion. That would piss me off. I don't see the point in multiple representatives from a conference when the conference play already declared a team was clearly the champion over the other participants.
I also think you leave the method of declaring the champion up to the conference so potential members only have themselves to blame when they have problems with the method. They can also decide which one is the most fair for their conference setup.
Posted on 5/4/12 at 11:53 am to Baloo
quote:
I can't believe I agree with the Big Ten on something. It's a good rule, and a nice compromise. It highly values conference champions, but also refuses to give a lousy conference champ a free ride. My only addendum would be an at large team could not play a team from its own conference in the first round.
I agree with all of this, including the amendment. People get all upset about this rule because of 2011, but if you look at the BCS rankings of the past, this rule would have worked great.
Posted on 5/4/12 at 11:53 am to JPLSU1981
Yeah
I guess I just don't understand compromising with a stupid argument.
I guess I just don't understand compromising with a stupid argument.
Posted on 5/4/12 at 11:58 am to bbap
quote:
ok so its not 100% guaranteed. teams 5 and 6 are out of luck if everyone in front of them won their conference.
Meh. Made sense to me. The benefit is the conference champs get in if they are ranked 3,4,5 and 6. Then you would be leaving out the top two teams.
Then, they would likely make a rule says top 2 get in, and then conference champs in the top 6. So, 3 and 4 could get jumped by 5 and 6, if 5 and 6 are conference champs. But, I wouldn't be opposed to letting 6 teams in with this rule. Top 6 get in, conference champs in the top 6 get an auto bid. 1 and 2 get a buy.
Problems:
Increase the length of the season, and
How do the bowls fit in
I just think this champion rule is going to lead to more teams getting in. You could possibly leave out one of the top 2 ranked teams [or both].
This post was edited on 5/4/12 at 11:59 am
Posted on 5/4/12 at 11:58 am to Baloo
quote:
My only addendum would be an at large team could not play a team from its own conference in the first round.
+1
Page 1 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News