- 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
re: Playoff good as is? Or need to be expanded?
Posted on 11/16/18 at 9:14 am to Courvillicious
Posted on 11/16/18 at 9:14 am to Courvillicious
It seems ironic, given Bama's dominance of college football of late, that we are talking about expanding the college playoff format. The impetus for the playoff format was the controversy in crowning a champion from the old BCS system. I'm not saying that it should not be expanded, merely pointing out the fact that it seems that lately it's been relatively easy to pick a clear #1.
0
Posted on 11/16/18 at 9:16 am to Bert Macklin FBI
quote:
want conference championships to matter. If you don’t win your conference, you shouldn’t compete for the natty.
I agree with this. Winning your conference should still matter.
If you went 16 the winner would have to play 4 more games. That seems to much for "student athletes". At 16 or 8 conference championship games would be useless, and I dont see conferences giving up the cash grabs that are championship games.
At most I think it should be 6. Each power 5 conference champion and 1 group of 5. And no backdoor non conference winners admitted even Alabama. If you dont win the Sec you dont get to go.
Posted on 11/16/18 at 9:17 am to Bert Macklin FBI
Les actually has a good idea for an 8 team playoff. you take the five power 5 champs, the next 2 highest ranked teams regardless of conference/title and then take the highest group of 5 teams.
I could do away with the group of 5 team in favor of a third at large team.
I could do away with the group of 5 team in favor of a third at large team.
Posted on 11/16/18 at 9:19 am to Bert Macklin FBI
quote:
What he is saying is that we have no prayer at winning the natty even if we were let into an 8 team playoff. Why have extra teams in the tourney if only 3 or 4 if them have a legit shot at winning?
This year is different because Bama looks to be better than everyone but most years you could make an argument for 8 teams that I’d put in a playoff any of them can win it. This year from 3-8 is probably a crapshoot in neutral fields.
Posted on 11/16/18 at 9:19 am to Bert Macklin FBI
quote:in light of 2007, I don't think we have any right to complain about this.
I’m tired of “storied” programs back dooring their way into the playoffs.
Posted on 11/16/18 at 9:19 am to Courvillicious
Didn’t read link. But solution is 8 team playoff with some objective qualifiers. No committee.
Five power five champs;
highest AP ranked group of five champ; and
two “at-large” or “wild cards” based on AP rankings of non-champs.
Five power five champs;
highest AP ranked group of five champ; and
two “at-large” or “wild cards” based on AP rankings of non-champs.
Posted on 11/16/18 at 9:22 am to Andychapman13
quote:this is just silly. Every sport in the world has a playoff of some kind to determine a champion. Hell, even all the lower divisions of college football have had a playoff for decades.
I don’t like the playoff period and didn’t like the BCS in the first place. Most championships can be gauged without this model. This year is a prime example, Bama is the best team. The old model would put them in the Sugar Bowl against a Big10 runner up or a team like ND. Clemson would play in Citrus, Michigan or Ohio St vs Pac12 champ in Rose.
All of this extra stuff is just for the sake of marketing and money. Old model would’ve put us in Sugar Bowl against an inferior team in 2011 to win the Natty! More games is just silly.IMO
The old bowl system (pre-BCS) was horrific. The BCS was quite flawed, but at least better, and how the 4-team playoff is better.
We're taking our time getting there, but an 8 team playoff is ideal, and it'll happen eventually.
Posted on 11/16/18 at 9:22 am to phi710
quote:
could do away with the group of 5 team in favor of a third at large team.
I think the group of 5 team being added is important and here’s why:
Right now there is a large sect of division 1 football that has zero opportunity to compete for a national title before the season even begins. They could Win all their Game’s for 3 years in a row and still won’t get invited to the dance.
Imagine if the NFL decided that no matter the team’s record, no NFC south team is allowed in the playoffs.
I get that they don’t have as strong of a schedule as the power 5 schools but it’s not really their fault. When you have a good group of 5 program, none of the big school want to play you.
Basically I’m saying that you either have to give those group of 5 teams an avenue to compete for a championship OR you need to separate the group of 5 and the power 5 into separate divisions and let them compete for a group of 5 title.
As it is right now, those schools really don’t compete for anything meaningful.
This post was edited on 11/16/18 at 9:28 am
Posted on 11/16/18 at 9:22 am to Courvillicious
sorry if a little lengthy.
After watching College Football for over 50 years I have seen the Playoffs come full circle in many ways. A few years back we went to the BCS formula to erase the corruption and human influence in the NC game.
However, once upon a time , 2 teams from the SEC played in the NC game. The NCAA and the News Media, Athletic Directors and Presidents could not have that, so it was changed.
Now, back to corruption, influence and speculation again. SHAMEFUL.
Many in the committee have admitted that they can not watch all of the games and rely on the opinion of other members.
Frankly, while there may have been legitimate issues w #3 and # 4 being left out in the BCS era, the formula got it pretty darn right.
Computers can track small deviations better than humans.
All the NCAA had to do, was to add 2 more teams, or have a 6 team playoff with #1 and # 2 getting a bye .. and VOILA, it would have all been fixed.
Now, we talk about the BEST 4 teams, but everyone knows that’s BS, because they are analyzed conference by conference….so is it the best 4 or not?
… we are back to HUMANS, POLITICS and POWER.
After watching College Football for over 50 years I have seen the Playoffs come full circle in many ways. A few years back we went to the BCS formula to erase the corruption and human influence in the NC game.
However, once upon a time , 2 teams from the SEC played in the NC game. The NCAA and the News Media, Athletic Directors and Presidents could not have that, so it was changed.
Now, back to corruption, influence and speculation again. SHAMEFUL.
Many in the committee have admitted that they can not watch all of the games and rely on the opinion of other members.
Frankly, while there may have been legitimate issues w #3 and # 4 being left out in the BCS era, the formula got it pretty darn right.
Computers can track small deviations better than humans.
All the NCAA had to do, was to add 2 more teams, or have a 6 team playoff with #1 and # 2 getting a bye .. and VOILA, it would have all been fixed.
Now, we talk about the BEST 4 teams, but everyone knows that’s BS, because they are analyzed conference by conference….so is it the best 4 or not?
… we are back to HUMANS, POLITICS and POWER.
Posted on 11/16/18 at 9:24 am to atltiger6487
quote:
in light of 2007, I don't think we have any right to complain about this.
We at least won our conference.
2011 is our right to complain about this.
Posted on 11/16/18 at 9:36 am to Courvillicious
Total 6.
Conference champions for each of the power 5, and the topped rank non-power 5 teams. Puts meaning back into the conference championship game, and gives a path for the teams like UCF.
Conference champions for each of the power 5, and the topped rank non-power 5 teams. Puts meaning back into the conference championship game, and gives a path for the teams like UCF.
Posted on 11/16/18 at 9:39 am to Courvillicious
I think 6, with the top 2 seeds with a bye.
Posted on 11/16/18 at 9:40 am to Courvillicious
I think I'm now in the smaller and smaller minority that doesn't want the playoff at all. I think it's pointless. (So no expansion.)
Posted on 11/16/18 at 9:40 am to Bert Macklin FBI
It would be 8
Power 5 champs and 3 at large bids.
Top G5 team auto bid if they’re in the top 15
Power 5 champs and 3 at large bids.
Top G5 team auto bid if they’re in the top 15
Posted on 11/16/18 at 9:40 am to SaintInBham
So Bert Maclin FBI....
Your good with Northwestern, Pittsburgh and Arizona State being in the playoffs if they were to pull upsets???
No way in hell. I want the four best teams period!!
It sucks that bama has made it every year but they have been one of the best four teams every year. When they do lose, it's close and competitive. Unlike Ohio State which gets blown out and doesn't deserve it.
Your good with Northwestern, Pittsburgh and Arizona State being in the playoffs if they were to pull upsets???
No way in hell. I want the four best teams period!!
It sucks that bama has made it every year but they have been one of the best four teams every year. When they do lose, it's close and competitive. Unlike Ohio State which gets blown out and doesn't deserve it.
Posted on 11/16/18 at 9:41 am to PhillyTiger90
Uh the NFL has 12 in the playoffs, 6 from the AFC and 6 from the NFC.
Posted on 11/16/18 at 9:41 am to bigosports
This automatically give you 5 more playoff games.
Puts an actual requirement on playoff spots and not just the committees eyeball test.
Puts an actual requirement on playoff spots and not just the committees eyeball test.
This post was edited on 11/16/18 at 9:51 am
Posted on 11/16/18 at 9:53 am to Courvillicious
The BCS would have been all we need this year.
Posted on 11/16/18 at 9:56 am to Kool Hand Luke
You can’t have an 8 seed with potentially 2-3 loses playing an undefeated team at a neutral site and still say your regular season matters.
Posted on 11/16/18 at 10:02 am to Courvillicious
quote:
Thoughts???
My preference is 6 teams. The P5 conference champions and the best "at large" team. Rankings would still determine seeding and the 1 and 2 would get a first round bye. 4 play as a quarter final "qualifying" round. Then those winners play 1 & 2 in the semis and then you have the big game.
If your conference has a championship game and you don't get a bye - your team will play 16 games if you play in the big game (and this will only be a maximum of 2 teams, could be as few as 0 in a given year). Everyone else will play 15 games.
With 16 or 32 teams, now you're going to have some kids playing 18 (or 19) games and a shite ton playing 16 and 17. At a certain point, I think that's too many games for a teenager.
This post was edited on 11/16/18 at 10:03 am
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News