- 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: College Football Playoff using top 4 Conference winners: BCS era
Posted on 12/16/13 at 10:23 pm to BayouBengals03
Posted on 12/16/13 at 10:23 pm to BayouBengals03
quote:
I just don't get the love for USC in 2006.
They couldn't beat UCLA with everything on the line. LSU and Florida were the two best teams in the nation that year.
They trashed Arkansas by 36 points in Fayettesville, the same Arkansas team that gave Florida a run for their money in the SEC Championship Game later that year.
1
Posted on 12/16/13 at 10:24 pm to Bench McElroy
1998 - Ohio State
1999 - Florida State
2000 - Miami
2001 - Miami
2002 - USC (USC/Miami would have been a toss-up)
2003 - LSU
2004 - USC
2005 - Texas
2006 - LSU
2007 - USC/Georgia
2008 - Florida
2009 - Alabama
2010 - Auburn
2011 - Alabama
2012 - Alabama (a number of SEC teams could have won it all)
2013 - Florida State
1999 - Florida State
2000 - Miami
2001 - Miami
2002 - USC (USC/Miami would have been a toss-up)
2003 - LSU
2004 - USC
2005 - Texas
2006 - LSU
2007 - USC/Georgia
2008 - Florida
2009 - Alabama
2010 - Auburn
2011 - Alabama
2012 - Alabama (a number of SEC teams could have won it all)
2013 - Florida State
Posted on 12/16/13 at 10:25 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
yeah, that's just insane. I wonder if they remember who was coaching LSU that year
Since you seem interested in their (CFN) analysis (not mine) -
Projected Final Four
Rose Bowl – No. 1 Oklahoma vs. No. 4 Michigan
Sugar Bowl – No. 2 LSU vs. No. 3 USC
Matchup Analysis: USC would’ve thrived on the road atmosphere. Matt Leinart and the offense had hung up 43 points or more in each of the final seven regular season games, and while the schedule wasn’t exactly challenging, the team really was that good. LSU struggled to put away Oklahoma in the Sugar Bowl, and it likely would’ve had problems late against the Trojan pass rush. Matt Mauck wouldn’t have had time to work, and Justin Vincent, the hero of the Sugar Bowl, wouldn’t have had much room to move. Oklahoma had put up monster numbers all season long, but it lost its mojo in the Big 12 title game. The much-maligned John Navarre would’ve been just good enough to pull off the upset over a Sooner team that had been exposed.
Projected National Championship: No. 2 USC vs. No. 4 Michigan
Projected National Champion: No. 3 USC
This post was edited on 12/16/13 at 10:25 pm
Posted on 12/16/13 at 10:25 pm to Bench McElroy
quote:
Here's my list of the best teams in the country since the BCS was implemented.
The only one's I'd really argue with are 2002 USC and 2013 Bama.
USC was hot but Miami was freaking loaded. Frankly 2002 Ohio State does not get enough credit because their offense and QB were so bad. But they had a bunch of guys that played on Sunday. I could see USC winning a playoff, but Miami would have been the favorite and could easily have won.
This year FSU is the best team. I know the ACC is down, but they crushed every one. Bama's schedule is not much better. Who was their best win? LSU? Is LSU really better than Clemson? Bama pulled away from LSU late but that was at home. FSU destroyed Clemson from the get go on the road.
This post was edited on 12/16/13 at 10:26 pm
Posted on 12/16/13 at 10:29 pm to BayouBengals03
quote:
I just don't get the love for USC in 2006.
they were very up and down that year. shite the bed against a terrible UCLA team, a hallmark of Pete's teams unfortunately. I would put them behind UF and LSU that year. 06 LSU was freaking filthy, I was a big fan of that team.
Posted on 12/16/13 at 10:29 pm to Bench McElroy
Yeah, Arkansas got a lot better as the season went on though. McFadden was coming off an injury early in the year, and their quarterback situation wasn't very good.
But still, that was a beating. But USC wasn't in very good form at the end of the year, as another poster said.
But still, that was a beating. But USC wasn't in very good form at the end of the year, as another poster said.
Posted on 12/16/13 at 10:30 pm to H-Town Tiger
It's easier to pin-point (w/o much debate - who would make it to the final game.)
Determining the winner - who knows?
2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008 - I believe USC has very strong arguments/most likely in making the title game in a playoff.
Determining the winner - who knows?
2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008 - I believe USC has very strong arguments/most likely in making the title game in a playoff.
This post was edited on 12/16/13 at 10:31 pm
Posted on 12/16/13 at 10:31 pm to Zamoro10
Oklahoma would have beat Michigan in 2003.
LSU, Oklahoma, and USC all had very good defenses. Michigan would have had no shot.
LSU, Oklahoma, and USC all had very good defenses. Michigan would have had no shot.
Posted on 12/16/13 at 10:45 pm to Zamoro10
quote:
It's less a reward for the season, I suppose and simply who is the best - at the end of the year.
I do like regular seasons to matter more and playoffs do diminish that. Larger sample sizes give us a better picture of who the best team is. But in CFB with so many teams playing such wildly different schedules, its rare that one team clearly stands out as the best over the 12-13 game regular season. End of the year polls are often influenced by the preseason rankings and name brand teams. While the winner of 1 special game is not automatically the best team, its better than just voting on who is the best team. Limited playoffs are the best alternative imo since you can not have everyone play every one.
Posted on 12/16/13 at 10:52 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
Limited playoffs are the best alternative imo since you can not have everyone play every one.
I agree.
I really think people would hate an 8 team playoff...
Because that traditional bogey-man is gone.
Now extremely talented "dynasties" so to speak - can have that off-night and drop a game or two or just lose on freak plays...
And then gear up and roll on in the playoff...
The old BCS system "generally" (not always) prevented mulligans.
Posted on 12/16/13 at 10:57 pm to Zamoro10
quote:
I agree.
I really think people would hate an 8 team playoff...
Because that traditional bogey-man is gone.
Now extremely talented "dynasties" so to speak - can have that off-night and drop a game or two or just lose on freak plays...
And then gear up and roll on in the playoff...
The old BCS system "generally" (not always) prevented mulligans.
Yeah, where there are more games played, it favors the more talented teams. The only exception is baseball where a lot of random, fluky stuff can happen over the course of a playoff series.
Posted on 12/16/13 at 10:57 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
2005: Again the top 3 are easy: USC, Texas, Penn State. #4 was Ohio State who’s 2 loses were to Texas and PSU.
Yeah, that year is easy - and probably a playoff waste of time. This is the one year in the BCS era - which was quite clear.
PSU struggled to beat #23 FSU in OT in the Orange Bowl.
Posted on 12/16/13 at 11:01 pm to Zamoro10
quote:
It's easier to pin-point (w/o much debate - who would make it to the final game.)
Determining the winner - who knows?
2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008 - I believe USC has very strong arguments/most likely in making the title game in a playoff.
I disagree with you here. I depends on the match ups. We are dismissing 2002 Miami because they lost to Ohio State and USC dominated Iowa. But in a 4 team PO, its the opening game is Miami-USC. Obviously we can never know for sure but imo Miami beats OSU if Mcghee does not get hurt. How would they have played against USC? Certainly USC could have beaten them and the winner of that game probably beats the OSU-UGA winner.
2003 using the formula from that year USC-LSU is the first round game. Though using the current formula i think it would have been USC #1 playing Michigan. Outside of 2008, 2003 was probably SC's best D and the O was rolling late, but LSU D was just nasty by the end of that year. I do think in that game and the 2009 game vs Texas Saban coached tight.
2007 while I think USC was really good and a case for them as the "best" team could be made, they don't and shouldn't make a 4 team playoff : #1 OSU, #2 LSU, #3 VT #4 OU. Sorry, losing to a 3-8 Stanford team is a killer. If the playoffs start right after the season LSU would not have won the opener. But with a month off to get healthier and add guys like RJF, I think they would have won it especially with that field.
This post was edited on 12/16/13 at 11:04 pm
Posted on 12/16/13 at 11:07 pm to Zamoro10
quote:
PSU struggled to beat #23 FSU in OT in the Orange Bowl.
I do not like to factor in bowl results, they would not have happened with a different format and were played after the field would have to be set. Ohio State was probably the 3rd best team. They might have beaten Texas if Sweater Vest Boy had just stuck with Troy Smith
Texas Defense doesn't get enough credit for that year. They weren't always great, but they made plays when they had to. They held OSU to 3 FG's in that game, including at least 1 (maybe 2) after turn overs gave them a short field and then there was the 4th down stop on White.
Posted on 12/16/13 at 11:08 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
I disagree with you here. I depends on the match ups.
Yeah...true.
Even CFN had their seedings and matchups...and say...2008 - well a lot of people like to say, they would have liked to see UF play USC in the Championship game.
Well, according to some of USC's rankings...in their scenario...UF would have played USC in the semi-finals at best...
In short, an 8 team playoff - depending on the matchups...could make the title game anti-climatic.
4 team is different...unless, we get this year...again and again...where #2 Auburn plays #4 Bama in the semi-finals...another do-over.
I don't know...I'm not sure the playoff will produce BCS free happiness.
quote:
Outside of 2008, 2003 was probably SC's best D and the O was rolling late, but LSU D was just nasty by the end of that year. I do think in that game and the 2009 game vs Texas Saban coached tight.
Agree. LSU was great on D but USC was actually underrated on D. Who knows?
USC - 2003 D carried that team with a young Bush/Leinart
USC - 2004 best balance of the Carroll teams.
USC - 2005 all offense.
Posted on 12/16/13 at 11:11 pm to dante
quote:Created to prevent all-SEC NC game again.
THIS PLAY-OFF WAS DONE TO GIVE THE OTHER CONFERENCES A BETTER CHANCE TO WIN THE NC.
Posted on 12/16/13 at 11:13 pm to BayouBengals03
quote:
But USC wasn't in very good form at the end of the year, as another poster said
Only the last game where they lost to UCLA, they were #2 and in the title game before that and would have gone over Florida if both finished with 1 loss. With the top 4 conference winners 2006 is
OSU v Louisville (people forget, they were # 3 behind OSU and UM before losing to unbeaten Rutgers)
Florida V USC.
If it was just BCS top 4 : OSU V LSU and Florida v Michigan. I think LSU and Florida would have pistol whipped those 2 and met in the final. Man I would have loved another shot at Florida that year
Posted on 12/16/13 at 11:15 pm to GeauxTigersLee
quote:
Created to prevent all-SEC NC game again.
No, no it was not. The SEC was the first ones to propose a playoff.
Posted on 12/16/13 at 11:23 pm to Zamoro10
quote:
In short, an 8 team playoff - depending on the matchups...could make the title game anti-climatic
8 teams is really my least favorite option
I'd really rather 16 where all 11 conference winners get auto bids and 5 at large. That would diminish the regular season more perhaps, but you'd have 2 rounds of playoffs on campus (id rather those go to teams that won a conference), the little conference can say they have a shot and at least get a big TV game and check to go with a probable arse whup'n. as for 8 team playoff giving "dynasty" teams a mulligan, the only things is they have to beat 3 really good teams in a row to get there, which does make it more challenging. For Bama this year they;d have to beat Baylor, Auburn, FSU is consecutive weeks.
quote:
LSU was great on D but USC was actually underrated on D. Who knows?
yep, that 2003 USC D was very, very good. I do agree overall, 2004 was their best team. 2005 D was young and not very good.
Posted on 12/16/13 at 11:31 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
No, no it was not. The SEC was the first ones to propose a playoff.
In their mind it would have been set just the top 4 teams from the BCS, not a shady conference selection committee that uses the Geico Ford DodgeRam Allstate Tostitos Championship Drive® to determine the top 4.
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News