- 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: It's very clear a +1 system is the best way to go.
Posted on 11/27/11 at 9:17 pm to Festus
Posted on 11/27/11 at 9:17 pm to Festus
Well like we said earlier, there will always be bitching at the cut off line no matter where you draw it.
However the gap between 1 and 6 is often large in CFB. Take LSU and Houston as a perfect example. I'm sure ever logical houston fan, coach, and player knows that they would have zero chance. I'm sure they'd love to try though.
However the gap between 1 and 6 is often large in CFB. Take LSU and Houston as a perfect example. I'm sure ever logical houston fan, coach, and player knows that they would have zero chance. I'm sure they'd love to try though.
0
Posted on 11/27/11 at 9:21 pm to Festus
quote:
frankly I prefer a fully conditional system.
This. A plus one is unnecessary in most years. Have a selection committee like in ncaa bb. If there are 4 teams with legitimate claims to the mnc, then use 2 bcs bowls as semi finals, with the nc game the next week (like it is now) all you do is cost a couple of 6-6 teams a bowl spot somewhere. S be it.
In years where it's not necessary, just play the mnc game as usual. If you need a play-in game (like this year maybe...osu vs. Bama?) ) then you've got the bcs games to handle it.
Selection committee...no change to the bowl schedule...no plus one when it's not necessary.
Posted on 11/27/11 at 9:25 pm to tigermikear
I get what you are saying, BUT I think it needs to be concrete. If they do it, it needs to always be done. The number 3 and 4 teams will always feel they deserve a shot, especially if they haven't played and earned their way in by a) having same record b) all winning conference, etc etc
Posted on 11/27/11 at 9:25 pm to oOoLsUtIgErSoOo
quote:
We would get rid of all this rematch bs. We would get rid of all the should Oklahoma state, Virginia tech be in over bama.
I like a +1 system for the times where there are more than two teams with a real argument for #1. But the down-side would seem to be it makes rematches more likely (and therefore regular season matchups between powerhouses less meaningful)
This post was edited on 11/27/11 at 9:27 pm
Posted on 11/27/11 at 9:26 pm to tigermikear
quote:This would be my vote. Why make LSU play into a BCSCG? Why make Texas and USC in 2005 play in? It will never happen like this though.
quote:
frankly I prefer a fully conditional system.
This. A plus one is unnecessary in most years. Have a selection committee like in ncaa bb. If there are 4 teams with legitimate claims to the mnc, then use 2 bcs bowls as semi finals, with the nc game the next week (like it is now) all you do is cost a couple of 6-6 teams a bowl spot somewhere. S be it.
In years where it's not necessary, just play the mnc game as usual. If you need a play-in game (like this year maybe...osu vs. Bama?) ) then you've got the bcs games to handle it.
Selection committee...no change to the bowl schedule...no plus one when it's not necessary.
Posted on 11/27/11 at 9:27 pm to alajones
Why would you think that's best for college football? Is there a sport that just awards a champion with no type of post season at all???
Posted on 11/27/11 at 9:30 pm to molsusports
I wouldn't be against a rematch if bama had to go through Oklahoma state to get it.
Posted on 11/27/11 at 9:33 pm to oOoLsUtIgErSoOo
And it would certainly not make the regular season match up less important. LSU plays bama in the regular season and LSU wins...now let's say Boise, Oklahoma state and Stanford (or insert another team here) stays undefeated or also has 1 tough loss. Bama is on the outside looking in the top 4. It just didn't happen that way this year. It would decrease the importance of the regular season at all.
Posted on 11/27/11 at 9:44 pm to oOoLsUtIgErSoOo
quote:Well, CFB did that up until the late 60's.
Why would you think that's best for college football? Is there a sport that just awards a champion with no type of post season at all???
I'm saying I'm for a plus 1 (final four) format. But only if it is needed. In 2005 it wasn't. LSU this year shouldn't have to play in a play in game.
Posted on 11/27/11 at 9:49 pm to alajones
I'm with you for the most part. LSU shouldn't have to play in a play in game, but if that would be the system that's set in place that everyone has to do, then I'd be perfectly fine with it.
LSU also shouldn't have to play bama again...but that's likely going to happen.
I'm ok with the rematch once bama goes through Oklahoma state (assuming they beat OU), or someone else first.
Bottom line...in both situations LSU doesn't get enough credit for this great season, but nobody wants them to just be handed the title without a post season game. And that's the only other option. Therefore, out of the 3 I'd be in favor of the plus one (or final four- whatever you want to call it).
LSU also shouldn't have to play bama again...but that's likely going to happen.
I'm ok with the rematch once bama goes through Oklahoma state (assuming they beat OU), or someone else first.
Bottom line...in both situations LSU doesn't get enough credit for this great season, but nobody wants them to just be handed the title without a post season game. And that's the only other option. Therefore, out of the 3 I'd be in favor of the plus one (or final four- whatever you want to call it).
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News