- 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: Doesn't SECCG loser get Sugar Bowl Dibs if winner goes to MNC??
Posted on 11/14/10 at 1:31 pm to DrEdgeLSU
Posted on 11/14/10 at 1:31 pm to DrEdgeLSU
quote:
P.S. There is nothing mythical about a national championship that is earned by playing games on the field.
That's called a playoff, and we don't have one. The championship is earned by swaying people's opinions, not by what happens on the field.
quote:
There is nothing mythical about the pair of crystal footballs in the LSU trophy case.
The crystal footballs themselves exist, but what they represent is mythical.
2
Posted on 11/14/10 at 1:34 pm to efrad
quote:
The championship is earned by swaying people's opinions, not by what happens on the field
Really? You mean the Texas Alabama game I swear I watched last year wasn't on a field? You think the voters decided to pick Alabama thanks to lobbying and the fact they went 14-0 in the SEC had no impact?
Posted on 11/14/10 at 1:42 pm to CWilken21
quote:
The folks from the Sugar Bowl would likely take TCU or Boise (whichever team The Rose Bowl doesn't take)
Doubtful.
They are not obligated to take one of those guys if one makes the championship or the Rose fulfills its obligation.
In fact, I can see the Sugar taking Auburn (if they are not top 2), SC (if they beat Auburn) and an at-large Big 10 team like OSU. They get first choice this year.
Posted on 11/14/10 at 2:00 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
Really? You mean the Texas Alabama game I swear I watched last year wasn't on a field?
So you're saying that because voters are now picking two teams and pitting them against each other, instead of just picking one team, that this system is significantly better?
quote:
You think the voters decided to pick Alabama thanks to lobbying and the fact they went 14-0 in the SEC had no impact?
That you're using the fact that they went 14-0 in the SEC is lobbying. Boise State didn't lose a game either, and they didn't deserve to be in the NC game with how the BCS works, but if we had a playoff system, they would have been able to get on the field and prove themselves. Are you seriously telling me that having FIVE UNDEFEATED TEAMS (Bama, Texas, Cincy, Boise St., and TCU) and only TWO OF THEM having the opportunity to win the NC is fair?
And yes, you can say shite all you want about how the Big East, WAC, and MWC suck, but that doesn't change 2004, in which you had three undefeated teams (Texas, USC, and Auburn) and one had NO CHANCE to prove themselves on the field.
It doesn't matter how awesome a team like Boise State is, they could be twenty times better than Auburn and Oregon combined, they're still at the whim of the other teams: they need to schedule bigger games to sway voters, and if bigger conferences are unwilling to let them join and bigger teams are unwilling to schedule them, what can they do?
As long as college football doesn't have a real playoff system, IT IS FLAWED AND THEREFORE ITS CHAMPIONSHIP IS MYTHICAL.
Posted on 11/14/10 at 2:00 pm to KnoxvilleBerryTiger
no not necearrily,..the next highest ranked SEC team does...
Posted on 11/14/10 at 2:18 pm to tiger chaser
Wow. Seriously?
Posted on 11/14/10 at 3:06 pm to efrad
quote:
So you're saying that because voters are now picking two teams and pitting them against each other, instead of just picking one team, that this system is significantly better?
yes
quote:
That you're using the fact that they went 14-0 in the SEC is lobbying. Boise State didn't lose a game either,
huh? Alabama played a much tougher schedule than Boise. That's not lobbying, its called the season and it takes place on the field. Just because there is not a multi round tournament after the season doesn't mean its not based on results of games that take place on the field.
quote:
only TWO OF THEM having the opportunity to win the NC is fair
Fair is not a concern of mine. I do not think its fair that USCe gets to play for the SEC title at 5-3 over teams that could have a better SEC record. I don't think its fair that Auburn at 8-0 or 7-1 has to play an extra game to win the SEC over a 5-3 team. Over the course of the season, Auburn has proven themselves (on the field btw) to be the best team in the SEC.
Many playoff advocates would give an automatic berth for winning a conference. I don't its fair that a 8-4 team could win the Big East and play for the NC while a 1 loss SEC or Big 10 might not.
quote:
2004, in which you had three undefeated teams (Texas, USC, and Auburn) and one had NO CHANCE to prove themselves on the field.
It was OU FTR, I'm still at a loss to figure out where those games I saw Auburn play were if not "on a field".
I'd rather a 4 team playoff personally, but no more.
This post was edited on 11/14/10 at 3:09 pm
Posted on 11/14/10 at 3:18 pm to KnoxvilleBerryTiger
no
Posted on 11/14/10 at 4:58 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
huh? Alabama played a much tougher schedule than Boise. That's not lobbying, its called the season and it takes place on the field. Just because there is not a multi round tournament after the season doesn't mean its not based on results of games that take place on the field.
It is ludicrous that there are teams that can go undefeated and never have a chance to win a national championship. If you're not part of a BCS conference, you might as well not even field a team.
quote:
That's not lobbying, its called the season and it takes place on the field.
It is lobbying... lobbying based on the results on the field, but lobbying nonetheless. Until you don't have to "make a case" for a team to be in or not, until the teams just go on the field and beat each other, there's no fairness and it's an MNC.
quote:
Fair is not a concern of mine.
Then why are you even arguing? If you want to say that this format is more entertaining, or that you prefer it because it's more interesting... fine. But it's still mythical if it's not fair.
quote:
I do not think its fair that USCe gets to play for the SEC title at 5-3 over teams that could have a better SEC record.
The point of the SEC Championship game isn't to determine who is the second best in the SEC; it's to determine who is the BEST in the SEC. LSU had its chance against Auburn and we lost. Do you think the NFL playoff system is similarly flawed because the two best teams could be in the same conference? It's the best system most of the time, and all that matters is that the best team makes it out.
quote:
Many playoff advocates would give an automatic berth for winning a conference. I don't its fair that a 8-4 team could win the Big East and play for the NC while a 1 loss SEC or Big 10 might not.
If the 1-loss SEC or Big 10 team were better, they would have won their conference. If the SEC Champion is really better than the Big East Champion, they will beat them.
quote:
I'm still at a loss to figure out where those games I saw Auburn play were if not "on a field".
They won every game on the field and it was up to pollsters and lobbying who got in. They didn't get a chance to play USC or OU.
Posted on 11/14/10 at 5:27 pm to efrad
quote:
It is ludicrous that there are teams that can go undefeated and never have a chance to win a national championship. If you're not part of a BCS conference, you might as well not even field a team.
Its ludicrous that people think a season is a failure or waste if they don't win the championship.
quote:
The point of the SEC Championship game isn't to determine who is the second best in the SEC; it's to determine who is the BEST in the SEC
No its not, the point of it it is to generate revenue. The winner of 1 game, even those with fancy names does not in and of itself prove anything (Was 2007 Kentucky better than LSU?) Auburn will be at worst 7-1 in SEC going into the SEC CG. USCe is 5-3. There is no question who the "best" SEC team is based on 8 regular season SEC games. To say USCe is the best if they win that game is absurd. In 2001 Florida had a better SEC record than LSU and beat us 44-15 at BR. We were not better than them just because we won a shitty SEC W and then upset UT. The regular season should matter. Its amazing that people think the entire season is meaningless if a team does't get to the NCG, but want to render the regular season less meaningful
quote:
Do you think the NFL playoff system is similarly flawed because the two best teams could be in the same conference? It's the best system most of the time, and all that matters is that the best team makes it out.
Yes any system where a team like the 2007 Giants can win the championship is flawed. They didn't deserve that chance. Playoffs are OK, its when you put in too many teams that it becomes flawed.
quote:
If the 1-loss SEC or Big 10 team were better, they would have won their conference. If the SEC Champion is really better than the Big East Champion, they will beat them.
This is just circular logic. Anything can happen in 1 game (see LSU Ark 2007). There is nothing fair about giving a team that goes 8-4 in the Big East a shot at the title but a team that goes 11-1 in the Big 10 does not. If LSU or Ohio State finish 11-1 and don't play for the NC because they did not win their conference, that's fine, but not if teams that have proven to be worse on the field over 12 games gets to because they won a conference get to play for the title.
Posted on 11/14/10 at 5:29 pm to KnoxvilleBerryTiger
No, the only change the SEC made was after we got screwed in 2005. We were 10-1 going into the SEC championship and lost to UGA thus going from the Sugar Bowl all the way to Chick-Fil-A bowl.
All they did was protect an SEC team in the top 10 to make sure they don't get screwed like that.
We went to the Sugar Bowl in 2006 despite not making the championship game when Arkansas lost to UF.
All they did was protect an SEC team in the top 10 to make sure they don't get screwed like that.
We went to the Sugar Bowl in 2006 despite not making the championship game when Arkansas lost to UF.
Posted on 11/14/10 at 5:30 pm to KnoxvilleBerryTiger
No. That is an option not in this senario. South Carolina isnt high enough to gain ground on LSU or Bama. If LSU wins out, even if SC wins big over Auburn(highly unlikely) they cant get high enough in the polls
Posted on 11/14/10 at 5:43 pm to efrad
quote:
The championship is earned by swaying people's opinions, not by what happens on the field.
God, that regurgitated crap gets worse every time I hear it,
Posted on 11/14/10 at 5:46 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
Yes any system where a team like the 2007 Giants can win the championship is flawed.
I likedt 09 when Arizon made the playoffs barely better than .500 and New England didn't.
Pointing to the NFL as a better system is laughable.
The ONLY reason lower divisions of college football don't have bowls is because they can't. They aren't chosing a playoff, they don't have an option.
Posted on 11/14/10 at 5:58 pm to LSUfan4444
quote:
I likedt 09 when Arizon made the playoffs barely better than .500 and New England didn't.
you mean 08? Its even worse. SD went 8-8 and won the AFC West, while 11-5 NE missed the playoffs.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News