- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Score Board
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- SEC Score Board
- 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: How TF the gumps playing WCU in week 12?
Posted on 11/21/19 at 2:58 am to la_birdman
Posted on 11/21/19 at 2:58 am to la_birdman
quote:
These conference championships have to mean something. Why have them if they don't count? This isn't directed at you, just thinking out loud.
You make a good point though, if Penn State beats tOSU. We'll find out soon enough.
I tend to agree, on one hand, that it seems pointless to have conference championships if they don't carry any extra significance.
On the other hand, I think conference title games are there more so for conference bragging rights, and more money for the respective conferences, than they are for any national implications.
Because, when you think about it, this isn't like professional sports where you have somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 teams, and everyone plays everyone, and every team is made up, obviously, of professional players. The playing field is mostly even, you have a limited number of teams, and so you can have a playoff system of however many teams, and no one can really complain about being "left out" because they aren't popular enough. There's a settled structure.
In college, the conferences vary greatly in talent and structure, and so it leaves a ton of subjectivity up in the air. I don't think Oregon or Utah are better than a Tua lead Alabama. But those teams would be arguing, even if Tua were still playing, that they should be in because they won their conference. The problem with that argument, IMO, is that you then have to prove that Bama wouldn't have slaughtered the Pac-12, if they played in that conference. That's a bad conference. And If Bama beats Auburn, they would have beaten the same team, on the road, that Oregon lost to on a neutral field.
Edit- I should add that conference titles games obviously CAN have national implications, depending on the match ups, such as LSU vs Georgia figures to be. But that's more happenstance than anything else. It seems like every year, Clemson faces a .500 team for the ACC championship.
This post was edited on 11/21/19 at 3:07 am
2
Posted on 11/21/19 at 3:07 am to Metaloctopus
quote:
That's a bad conference.
I do agree.
But Tua isn't playing. Oregon and Utah are playing good football. I don't agree with the 'bragging rights' thing.
It's a conference championship. Like it or not, it's better than what Alabama has done this season. Do I think Alabama is better than those schools? Yes.
But again, the conference championships have to mean something. That's why you have them and play hard to get to them.
quote:
If Bama beats Auburn, they would have beaten the same team, on the road, that Oregon lost to on a neutral field.
And they also would've beaten a team that has been beaten three times, compared to Oregon or Utah who has beaten once. But what if Auburn beats Alabama? Like you said, Tua isn't playing. We beat Auburn by 23. They are a QB away from making a run. I can't see Mac Jones beating them in Jordan Hare. Then again, I'm not sure Bo Nix can keep it together for the entire game. I do think he'll get better in time but for now I'm not sure.
This post was edited on 11/21/19 at 3:16 am
Posted on 11/21/19 at 3:09 am to Metaloctopus
quote:
Clemson faces a .500 team for the ACC championship.
Completely agree with this. Clemson is a good team, I will admit. But when the rest of the conference is so bad it's almost easy. They have had scares this year though. Not saying they're a pushover though.
Posted on 11/21/19 at 3:24 am to la_birdman
quote:
But Tua isn't playing. Oregon and Utah are playing good football. I don't agree with the 'bragging rights' thing.
I realize he isn't, and that is why I qualified my statement in saying that even IF Tua were still playing the argument by the Pac-12 teams would have been the same. And I can respect if you don't agree with the conference bragging rights argument, but I illustrated my reasons for this. As I said, it is not a level playing field, like it is in professional sports. So it's very difficult to simply reward one team over another because of conference titles.
That why I brought up Clemson. I'm not denying, either, that they are a very good team. My point about them seemingly always playing .500 teams for the ACC title is that what if, somehow, the other team beat Clemson? Would Pittsburgh, or Ga Tech, or whoever, deserve to be in ahead of Alabama? Or even ahead of Clemson? I guess it would be weird to see Clemson be rated higher than the team that beat them for the conference title, but the way college football is structured, the whole season is a playoff.
That's the subjective nature of putting too much emphasis on conference titles. Everyone does not play the same level of competition, and so it comes down to a judgement call on who teams have played, and how they've played them.
quote:
And they also would've beaten a team that has been beaten three times, compared to Oregon or Utah who has beaten once. But what if Auburn beats Alabama? Like you said, Tua isn't playing. We beat Auburn by 23. They are a QB away from making a run. I can't see Mac Jones beating them in Jordan Hare.
I'm not saying that 3 loss Auburn should get in. I'm talking about common opponents. The Pac-12, as I said, and as you agreed, is weak. So how impressive is a one loss Pac-12 team vs a 1 loss SEC team?
Oregon's best opponent they've played so for is Auburn. They lost on a neutral field to them. If Alabama beats Auburn, they would have done so on the road, and would immediately have a better win and better loss than Oregon.
You asked me what if Auburn beats bama, and the answer is, of course, this whole discussion would then be a moot point. They may very well lose to Auburn. But this is a hypothetical discussion of a 1 loss Alabama vs a 1 loss Pac-12 champ, so I didn't think it was necessary to point out what would happen if bama lost to Auburn.
This post was edited on 11/21/19 at 3:35 am
Posted on 11/21/19 at 3:34 am to Metaloctopus
We're just talking football.
There are a lot of scenarios that could still be played out. To focus on one is silly.
All I'm saying.
You see it differently than I do and that's ok.
I understand that. But why have the conference championship if it's not going to mean anything? That's what I'm saying. Maybe if Oregon and Utah were ranked in the teens, ok. They are right under Alabama. Both Oregon and Utah, respectively.
I think the winner of that championship game, provided the two teams win out, will be put over Alabama. Because it's a championship game.
There are a lot of scenarios that could still be played out. To focus on one is silly.
All I'm saying.
You see it differently than I do and that's ok.
quote:
Everyone does not play the same level of competition,
I understand that. But why have the conference championship if it's not going to mean anything? That's what I'm saying. Maybe if Oregon and Utah were ranked in the teens, ok. They are right under Alabama. Both Oregon and Utah, respectively.
I think the winner of that championship game, provided the two teams win out, will be put over Alabama. Because it's a championship game.
This post was edited on 11/21/19 at 3:41 am
Posted on 11/21/19 at 3:50 am to la_birdman
quote:
We're just talking football.
There are a lot of scenarios that could still be played out. To focus on one is silly.
I know, and I'm not trying, in any way, to be hostile. I'm just trying to make my points, in a matter of fact way.
But you and I were discussing what would happen with a 1 loss Alabama and a 1 loss Pac-12 champ. Other scenarios can be discussed, but there are really only two scenarios that are most intriguing right now, and that is the one we're discussing, and the other being if Penn State wins out, and what happens to them and Ohio State.
For purposes of our specific discussion, it was not relevant for me to say what would happen if Alabama loses to Auburn. If they lose, they're out, and that much is plainly obvious. But the scenario of a 1 loss bama and 1 loss Pac-12 champ, when you break it down, Alabama has an argument for having a better resume than either Oregon or Utah. I don't think they'd have a better resume than a 1 loss Penn State and Ohio State. So that would be interesting.
quote:
I understand that. But why have the conference championship if it's not going to mean anything? That's what I'm saying. Maybe if they were ranked in the teens, ok. They are right under Alabama. Both Oregon and Utah, respectively.
Here again, I'll refer back to my point about conference title games being more about giving teams in the conference a chance to play for a championship, and bringing more money to the conference in the process. I can tell you, with absolute conviction, that is why conference title games exist.
And since the NCAA isn't one big league, where everyone plays everyone, it's impossible to judge teams evenly based on conference titles. In the NFL, for instance, you have two conferences. The winner of each conference, of course, meets in the super bowl. And if you are a lower seeded team, you have to win an extra game to get to the super bowl. On top of all of this, you don't have a bunch of teams who played totally different levels of competition. So, it's fair.
In college football, there are 10 conferences. Some conferences are full of crappy teams, and some are loaded with good teams, and even some great teams. I don't see how it would be possible to fairly decide who goes to the CFP based on conference titles. It has to be a body of work, in my opinion, and that's the way it's always been, no matter what formula has been tried, it always comes down to the same things.
This post was edited on 11/21/19 at 3:56 am
Posted on 11/21/19 at 7:02 am to jason045
this and a Tualess bama will not remain in the #5 slot. I see a PAC 12 team moving up. AU/Bama will be a pickem
Posted on 11/21/19 at 7:15 am to jason045
quote:
Just saying looking back 4-5 years from 2016 which is generally how early these games are scheduled, nobody was scared of the Trojans. So they tried, ??.
4 years prior 7-6
5 years prior 10-2
compared to Texas who we scheduled
4 years prior 5-7
5 years prior 6-7
i don’t guess we tried either.
I mean Texas has already lost more games this year than USC did the year Bama played them.
Posted on 11/21/19 at 7:16 am to jason045
to answer the OP's question, both auburn and alabama scheduled a cupcake before the iron bowl so they could regroup and reenergize before the big game. next best thing to an off week.
look at auburn's competition this week.
look at auburn's competition this week.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News