- 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: The BCS vs Playoff Debate
Posted on 7/15/09 at 11:20 am to Tiger HouTX
Posted on 7/15/09 at 11:20 am to Tiger HouTX
quote:
but how can every other legit sport, whether college or otherwise have a playoff, not some computerized/polling format?
well 1 big difference is that in CFB the elite top 2-4 teams are a LOT better than the 20-30 ranked teams
and european league soccer doesn't have a playoff to crown the champ
0
Posted on 7/15/09 at 11:21 am to tigers
quote:
If you are a D1 school, and you don't lose a game, and don't get a chance to play for the title, then it is not a playoff.
Almost none of the playoff systems I have seen (except for the shitty 16 team ones) would have allowed an undefeated Ball State in last year.
Sorry but going undefeated with a ridiculously easy schedule shouldn't automatically give you a free ticket to try for a National Title.
Posted on 7/15/09 at 11:26 am to lsumatt
i think he's scrambling looking up the 2004 pre-bowl records
1. USC
2. OU
3. AU
4. Utah
5. BSU
all undefeated
6. Texas (only lost to OU in a close game)
7. Cal (only lost to USC in a close game)
both with better claims thatn 4/5
HOW DO YOU SLICE UP THAT INTO A 4-TEAM PLAYOFF?
1. USC
2. OU
3. AU
4. Utah
5. BSU
all undefeated
6. Texas (only lost to OU in a close game)
7. Cal (only lost to USC in a close game)
both with better claims thatn 4/5
HOW DO YOU SLICE UP THAT INTO A 4-TEAM PLAYOFF?
Posted on 7/15/09 at 11:34 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
HOW DO YOU SLICE UP THAT INTO A 4-TEAM PLAYOFF?
He is gonna argue an 8-team playoff. But I don't want 1998 Tulane in the 8-team playoff. Bottom line is schedules in college football are varying and to simply say that all undefeated teams deserve a shot is BS.
Can you imagine Sun Belt teams scheduling easy OOC games, going undefeated and getting an auto bid to a 4 or 8 team playoff?
Posted on 7/15/09 at 11:37 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
HOW DO YOU SLICE UP THAT INTO A 4-TEAM PLAYOFF?
easy, you cut out BSU. Alot better than cutting the bottom three.
Posted on 7/15/09 at 11:38 am to novowels
quote:
The current BCS system with a +1 is the best idea I've heard so far.
Why? It doesn't apply EVERY year.
Say you have 4 teams
12-0 vs 11-1 in game one
11-1 vs 10-2 in game two
In game one the 12-0 team wins. In game two, the 10-2 team upsets the 11-1 team.
You want to tell me you would need to have the extra game with #4 team playing the #1 to decide the champion?
NO. YOU DON'T NEED THE PLUS 1.
Posted on 7/15/09 at 11:38 am to Tiger HouTX
quote:
easy, you cut out BSU.
SFP was replying to the previous poster who claimed that any system that leaves out undefeated teams isn't a playoff.
Posted on 7/15/09 at 11:40 am to lsumatt
quote:
If you are a D1 school, and you don't lose a game, and don't get a chance to play for the title, then it is not a playoff.
quote:
Sorry but going undefeated with a ridiculously easy schedule shouldn't automatically give you a free ticket to try for a National Title.
Hawaii proved that.
Posted on 7/15/09 at 11:51 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
well AU beat that 2006 team without a QB and with 210 lb LBs
dont forget the refs.
Posted on 7/15/09 at 12:44 pm to hojo
quote:
2. It will never work (but no reasoning)
I've listed several reasons why different scenarios wouldn't work. The only one where I just "left it at that" was the moronic idea to have 24 teams involved. I thought that one was kind of self explanatory.
Posted on 7/15/09 at 12:52 pm to MOT
I only advocated a 10 team playoff. This would take care of Sloflo's 5 undefeated team scenario but still leave us with serious quality on the field, including ultimately the opportunity for teams like Texas and Texas Tech from last year, Auburn in '04, and USC in '03 to get to have a say without the computers deciding it for them. Oh, and a team like the '06 Tigers who beat 4 top ten teams on the road would also get a shot.
Kill the intensity of the regular season? Yeah, 'cause we were so excited about the Sugar Bowl against Notre Dame. That was awesome (well, it was kinda awesome to see Quinn and his boys put in their place, but you know what I mean).
Kill the intensity of the regular season? Yeah, 'cause we were so excited about the Sugar Bowl against Notre Dame. That was awesome (well, it was kinda awesome to see Quinn and his boys put in their place, but you know what I mean).
Posted on 7/15/09 at 12:56 pm to Baloo
quote:
We also know teams would schedule those tough games BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THEY DID prior to the BCS disincentive.
You can't be serious. There are just as many, if not more, of these matchups now than there were 20 years ago.
Have you gone through and looked at the schedules and future schedules for any of the top programs around the country? Serious question.
Posted on 7/15/09 at 1:01 pm to hojo
One of the biggest problems with a playoff system is every single one proposed has serious flaws:
1) 4 teams. The best imo, but it doesn't solve "the problem". You would still leave out a quality team sometimes like Utah last year and would still need a BCS-type rating system to determine them
2) 8 teams. Almost everyone involves the 6 conference champs + 2 WCs or mid-majors. This almost makes non-conference games meaningless (might as well focus on conference games). And it also allows 3 and 4 loss teams to get in (especially w/ conference championship game upsets). I don't want a 4 loss team getting hot and winning the NC. College football is great b/c it doesn't allow that.
3)more than 8 teams. Is just silly. You then have undeserving teams playing for a chance at a title. No reason to schedule tough OOC games; better off hoping to finish the season with a good record rather than screw it up w/ a OOC loss. Plus many of these formats involve all the mid-major champs. Yuck.
1) 4 teams. The best imo, but it doesn't solve "the problem". You would still leave out a quality team sometimes like Utah last year and would still need a BCS-type rating system to determine them
2) 8 teams. Almost everyone involves the 6 conference champs + 2 WCs or mid-majors. This almost makes non-conference games meaningless (might as well focus on conference games). And it also allows 3 and 4 loss teams to get in (especially w/ conference championship game upsets). I don't want a 4 loss team getting hot and winning the NC. College football is great b/c it doesn't allow that.
3)more than 8 teams. Is just silly. You then have undeserving teams playing for a chance at a title. No reason to schedule tough OOC games; better off hoping to finish the season with a good record rather than screw it up w/ a OOC loss. Plus many of these formats involve all the mid-major champs. Yuck.
This post was edited on 7/15/09 at 1:04 pm
Posted on 7/15/09 at 1:03 pm to MOT
quote:
We also know teams would schedule those tough games BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THEY DID prior to the BCS disincentive.
One reason this could be true is parity in college football. OU (or LSU)/Washington looked great on paper, but parity allows this game to be awful (teams were more consistent 20 years ago). Likewise OU/TCU is a great game b/c of parity but no one counts it because of TCU's lack of history.
Posted on 7/15/09 at 1:08 pm to hojo
quote:
I only advocated a 10 team playoff
I didn't see your idea. Give me the details and I'll address it.
Posted on 7/15/09 at 1:18 pm to mikedatyger
quote:
The current BCS system with a +1 is the best idea I've heard so far.
quote:
Why? It doesn't apply EVERY year.
Say you have 4 teams
12-0 vs 11-1 in game one
11-1 vs 10-2 in game two
In game one the 12-0 team wins. In game two, the 10-2 team upsets the 11-1 team.
You want to tell me you would need to have the extra game with #4 team playing the #1 to decide the champion?
NO. YOU DON'T NEED THE PLUS 1.
It's a 4 team tournament. If the 10-2 team beats the 12-0 team then they're the national champion. It's just like in basketball when a #3 seed beats a #1 seed in the final. Doesn't matter what you did in the regular season once you make the +1 playoff.
Posted on 7/15/09 at 1:33 pm to hojo
I agree with a 10-team playoff.
I've heard the arguments, and nothing has changed my mind. I think it is more important to get in every team that truly deserves a shot than to exclude teams that might not be as deserving. If you don't get to 10 teams you won't give a shot to the non-BCS conference without leaving out a more deserving team. A team that doesn't deserve to be there should get beat anyway... if they don't more power to them.
I've heard the arguments, and nothing has changed my mind. I think it is more important to get in every team that truly deserves a shot than to exclude teams that might not be as deserving. If you don't get to 10 teams you won't give a shot to the non-BCS conference without leaving out a more deserving team. A team that doesn't deserve to be there should get beat anyway... if they don't more power to them.
Posted on 7/15/09 at 1:38 pm to MOT
Basically, my idea was:
1. 10 teams determined by top 10 in BCS rankings.
2. Top two teams get first round bye.
3. 11 games total. Mid major bowls (Capital one, Cotton, Outback, Chick fil-A, Gator, etc.) would get first and second round. BCS bowl sites would get last 2 rounds. Rest of bowls? Play 'em. Who the hell cares now anyway.
4. I'd limit the regular season to 10 games. Conference championship games, while nice, would not be a necessity in this format since the BCS rankings would be all that was necessary to determine the top 10.
5. Rotate the championship site at the BCS bowls like they already do.
I realize this is a rudimentary outline, but ultimately travel shouldn't be a huge problem since the playoff round sites would already be predetermnined.
1. 10 teams determined by top 10 in BCS rankings.
2. Top two teams get first round bye.
3. 11 games total. Mid major bowls (Capital one, Cotton, Outback, Chick fil-A, Gator, etc.) would get first and second round. BCS bowl sites would get last 2 rounds. Rest of bowls? Play 'em. Who the hell cares now anyway.
4. I'd limit the regular season to 10 games. Conference championship games, while nice, would not be a necessity in this format since the BCS rankings would be all that was necessary to determine the top 10.
5. Rotate the championship site at the BCS bowls like they already do.
I realize this is a rudimentary outline, but ultimately travel shouldn't be a huge problem since the playoff round sites would already be predetermnined.
Posted on 7/15/09 at 1:40 pm to LSU Red24
Posted on 7/15/09 at 1:42 pm to DocBugbear
quote:
I think it is more important to get in every team that truly deserves a shot than to exclude teams that might not be as deserving
frick
that
if they truly deserve a shot, they could have done more on the field. even AU in 2004 could have done more on the field
quote:
If you don't get to 10 teams you won't give a shot to the non-BCS conference without leaving out a more deserving team
you know what? frick the non-BCS conference teams
This post was edited on 7/15/09 at 1:44 pm
Page 8 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News