- 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
Gary Danielson's 6-team playoff idea
Posted on 12/4/11 at 12:39 am
Posted on 12/4/11 at 12:39 am
I liked his 6-team playoff with the top-2 teams getting a bye. You could easily say that a playoff involving LSU, Alabama, Oklahoma State, Stanford, and two others from Boise State, Oregon, Wisconsin, etc...would be great.
10
Posted on 12/4/11 at 12:40 am to Sandtrap
I liked it
Posted on 12/4/11 at 12:40 am to Bread Orgeron
Me too
Posted on 12/4/11 at 12:40 am to Sandtrap
Meh. I like what we got now. I'd like to see quality win come back as a component of the BCS.
Posted on 12/4/11 at 12:41 am to Sandtrap
Me three.
Posted on 12/4/11 at 12:41 am to Tiger JJ
I liked it.
Top 2 seeds get a bye.
Top 2 seeds get a bye.
Posted on 12/4/11 at 12:43 am to Tiger JJ
The problem with what we have now is what is happening right now. If there was a playoff, there'd be no arguing who deserved to play in game and who was National Champion.
Posted on 12/4/11 at 12:44 am to Sandtrap
Though we've benefited more than anyone from the BCS system, I agree that this was one of the better playoff proposals I've seen
Posted on 12/4/11 at 12:45 am to Sandtrap
I liked it... At the time Bama fans prolly didn't... Bet they like it now
Posted on 12/4/11 at 12:45 am to Tiger JJ
I've always been ambivalent about a playoff but they do need to add a rule that specifies that quality wins matter as much as quality losses. Call it the gump rule.
Posted on 12/4/11 at 12:45 am to Sandtrap
I'm not a huge opponent of the BCS system (although it can be improved) and I'm not a big proponent of a playoff, BUT Danielson's idea is probably the best one I've seen.
Posted on 12/4/11 at 12:45 am to Sandtrap
quote:
The problem with what we have now is what is happening right now. If there was a playoff, there'd be no arguing who deserved to play in game and who was National Champion.
That's one way to look at it. I personally don't see the value in teams having to play more games against dissimilar competition. I certainly don't think it proves anything more than the current system does. There is clearly no dispute whatsoever that LSU should be in, so that's easy. And there's some dispute over the 2nd spot, but that doesn't bother me. 2 teams lost and it's close. Someone goes, someone doesn't. I won't think it's even a vague outrage either way if it's Bama or OSU.
ETA: Imagine a playoff game that goes into 6 OTs with the winning team advancing. I would argue that that tells us less about who "deserves" to go than the current system of evaluating the pros and cons of Bama and OSU.
This post was edited on 12/4/11 at 12:49 am
Posted on 12/4/11 at 12:45 am to Sandtrap
It's the NFL version of the conference playoffs. I like it.
Posted on 12/4/11 at 12:46 am to Sandtrap
I liked it.
I'm an analytical fricker and I'd have to analyze it more, but on face value I think it looked awesome.
I'm an analytical fricker and I'd have to analyze it more, but on face value I think it looked awesome.
Posted on 12/4/11 at 12:47 am to VOR
Yeah i like how the top two teams get a bye.
Posted on 12/4/11 at 12:49 am to drizztiger
The crazy thing about his plan was he had okie state at 2. Stating conference champs should be rewarded. Then throughout the game he said he thought bama should gO. That makes no sense that you would reward a conference champ with a bye and better seating but not a championship sPot with a far more superior resume.
Posted on 12/4/11 at 12:51 am to Sandtrap
What about applying a surcharge or deduction for not winning your conference? Make it a number that will fairly penalize a team in the BCS for not winning their conference
Posted on 12/4/11 at 12:52 am to biglego
I'd go for the big four bowls feeding a "semifinal" set of bowls, the two winners at that level playing in the title game. Each year #1 plays #8, #2 plays #7 and so on.
The only problem with all of these ideas is that they don't suck up to the Rose Bowl, PAC1x, and Big1x, especially Jim Delaney. Delaney will single-handedly veto all of these ideas.
The only problem with all of these ideas is that they don't suck up to the Rose Bowl, PAC1x, and Big1x, especially Jim Delaney. Delaney will single-handedly veto all of these ideas.
Posted on 12/4/11 at 12:52 am to ShermanTxTiger
quote:
What about applying a surcharge or deduction for not winning your conference? Make it a number that will fairly penalize a team in the BCS for not winning their conference
That's not a bad idea. I like it. Bring back quality wins, add ratings for quality of loss. Perfect!
Posted on 12/4/11 at 12:56 am to ShermanTxTiger
quote:
What about applying a surcharge or deduction for not winning your conference?
what happens if you are not in a conference though?
will never work. sorry bros.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News