- 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
re: A team that doesn't win their conference, doesn't deserve to play
Posted on 11/7/10 at 10:22 am to ezride25
Posted on 11/7/10 at 10:22 am to ezride25
quote:
Then the two best teams from each conference (regardless of division) earn the opportunity to win that conference via a CCG, a
I would make the same argument for the national title. Divisions like conferences are arbitrary and will fluctuate from year to year. If the 2 best teams are in the same conference they should play for the title. If a team is one of the top 2, they should be in the BCS CG regardless if they won their conference. Especially in conferences with a CCG.
In 2003 OU had the best record in the Big 12, they had just as many conferences losses as LSU and USC. They should not have been left out because they lost 1 specially named game.
This post was edited on 11/7/10 at 10:23 am
2
Posted on 11/7/10 at 10:25 am to ezride25
quote:
. The race for 1 and 2 should be in each and every conference regardless of divisional orientation.
the same should apply to the national title. Its somewhat ironic you are making this argument since its the exact opposite of your OP.
Posted on 11/7/10 at 10:27 am to H-Town Tiger
If that "specially named" game included the two best teams in the conference (K-State was not, but still won) then a team finishing second in their league should not be able to finish 1st in the nation. It's counter intuitive.
Posted on 11/7/10 at 10:29 am to ezride25
I agree completely with the main concept, with the following modification. You shouldn't be able to qualify to play in the BCSCG unless you win your conference.
Posted on 11/7/10 at 10:30 am to H-Town Tiger
The race for the BCS is exiting and is great for cfb. The problem is that good teams are left out. A race for 1 and 2 in each conference would be just as exciting, while also providing an opportunity for more quality teams to have an opportunity.
So you have an expanded playoff system with the first "playoff" game being one many conferences already play in the CCG.
So you have an expanded playoff system with the first "playoff" game being one many conferences already play in the CCG.
Posted on 11/7/10 at 10:30 am to Topwater Trout
quote:
Simple solution is to do what every other level of football does and have playoffs.
80% of the college football fanbase would agree with this but 5 of the 6 BCS conferences don't want to see this happen with the exception being Mike Slive and the SEC. Anything out of conference is out of his control. I am pretty sure he can arrange anything within conference however he wants as long as all the schools agree.
Posted on 11/7/10 at 10:33 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:
In 2003 OU had the best record in the Big 12, they had just as many conferences losses as LSU and USC. They should not have been left out because they lost 1 specially named game.
They didn't get left out and that's why USC fans are whining that it should've been USC vs LSU instead of OU vs LSU.
Posted on 11/7/10 at 10:37 am to coldhotwings
Plus OU lost. What does that say?
Posted on 11/7/10 at 10:38 am to ezride25
So a team that's in 2nd place in their Division, who's only loss is to the 1st place team(Who happens to be #2 in the nation) in their Division and is 2 games better than anyone in the other half of their Conference doesn't deserve talk in the BCSNCG?
This is one year it sucks to be in the SEC West.
This is one year it sucks to be in the SEC West.
Posted on 11/7/10 at 10:39 am to ezride25
quote:
If that "specially named" game included the two best teams in the conference (K-State was not, but still won) then a team finishing second in their league should not be able to finish 1st in the nation..
The 2nd best team in the Big 12 was Texas. OU beat them 65-14. OU was 8-0, no one else was 8-0 there is no reason to make OU play an extra game to win the conference. The only time there should be a CCG in an ideal world would be like last year in the SEC. 2 teams that didn't play finished tied. Other than that its pointless.
quote:
It's counter intuitive
No its not, conference schedules are not the entire schedule. Finishing 2nd with a CCG means you lost one specially named game.
Posted on 11/7/10 at 10:40 am to ezride25
quote:
Would this work?
not logically
quote:
Why or why not?
it requires the assumptions that (1) all conferences are equal and (2) no 2nd team in a conference is better than an opposing conference champ
i believe we can all agree both assumptions are bunk
Posted on 11/7/10 at 10:40 am to ezride25
quote:
They didn't get left out and that's why USC fans are whining that it should've been USC vs LSU instead of OU vs LSU.
They would have if the OP had his way because they did not "win" their conference, even though they had the best record in said conference.
quote:
Plus OU lost. What does that say?
that they weren't as good as LSU. If LSU and USC played, someone would have lost. Maybe OU would have beaten Michigan in the Rose Bowl.
Posted on 11/7/10 at 10:42 am to H-Town Tiger
So you would be in favor of a playoff system involving the top 2 teams from each conference? This would allow for the two teams playing for the NC to be from the same conference.
Posted on 11/7/10 at 10:42 am to Topwater Trout
quote:
Simple solution is to do what every other level of football does and have playoffs.
a "simple" solution without a real solution
Posted on 11/7/10 at 10:43 am to ezride25
quote:
If that "specially named" game included the two best teams in the conference (K-State was not, but still won)
awesome
Posted on 11/7/10 at 10:44 am to ezride25
quote:
So you would be in favor of a playoff system involving the top 2 teams from each conference?
hell no
Posted on 11/7/10 at 10:45 am to SlowFlowPro
How much of this thread have you actually read?
Posted on 11/7/10 at 10:45 am to ezride25
all of it now
Posted on 11/7/10 at 10:46 am to ezride25
quote:
So you would be in favor of a playoff system involving the top 2 teams from each conference? This would allow for the two teams playing for the NC to be from the same conference.
No I favor taking the top 4 teams, using the same system currently in place. I don't care if one of them did not win its conference, especially if their conference has a CCG.
Posted on 11/7/10 at 10:48 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
a "simple" solution without a real solution
I am just amazed that the NFL, FCS, highschools etc do not see how great the system is in NCAA d-1 to crown a champion. When will they come around to settle it like we do with a BCS system
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News